Talk:Hebron and Pobal Chill Chomáin: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Qibrisli Pasha: new section
 
ref fix
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{unsourced|date=September 2008}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=High}}
'''Pobal Chill Chomáin''' (PCC, [[English language|English]]: '''''People of Kilcommon''''', also informally known as '''Gas to Glinsk''') is a [[pressure group]] based in the parish of [[Kilcommon]], [[County Mayo]], [[Ireland]]<ref>http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4397&Itemid=38</ref>. It emerged from the larger [[Shell to Sea]] campaign in April 2008. The main goal of Shell to Sea is that [[Royal Dutch Shell]], [[StatoilHydro]] and [[Marathon Oil]] refine the [[Mayo gas]] offshore, as is done with Ireland's only other gas project, the [[Kinsale gas]]. This would mean it would no longer be necessary to transport raw, untreated [[natural gas]] at high pressure through inhabited areas to the intended [[refinery]] site at [[Bellanaboy]].
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=High}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
*[[Talk:Hebron/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Talk:Hebron/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*
*
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
== Palestinians leaving Hebron has been "attributed to continued harassment by settlers" ==


After many years of campaigning aginst Shell and the [[Irish government]] (see [[Corrib gas controversy]]), PCC have put forward a proposal that the refinery site be moved to [[Glinsk, Mayo|Glinsk]], a large uninhabited area a few miles to the east of the intended pipeline route and refinery. This would allow Shell and its partners the cost saving of refining the gas on land, while rerouting the pipeline away from inhabited areas. The proposal was publicly backed by [[Labour Party (Ireland)|Labour Party]] president [[Michael D. Higgins]], [[Roman Catholic Diocese of Killala|Bishop of Killala]], Dr. John Fleming, and local [[Fine Gael]] [[Teachta Dála]] [[Michael Ring]].
Let's look at the sources used for the contentious claim that harassment by settlers has forced thousands of Palestinians to leave Hebron:
*[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=623227] - an opinion piece by a far-left correspondent.
*[http://www.tiph.org/en/_skjult/Front_articles/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=1592] - this article never makes that claim.
*[http://www2.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/YAOI-6UN95C?OpenDocument] - a speech made by a senior UNWRA official, a highly partisan body staffed almost entirely by Palestinians
*[http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/a17e4c9ace4785bac1256d87004bca62] - a summary of a B'Tselem report; it claims 73 families had left by 2003.
Contentious claims, particularly when stated as fact, require excellent sources; I don't think these are measuring up. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Some members of the [[Rossport Five]] are part of the group (Vincent McGrath is its chairman), which is more localised to northwest Mayo than Shell to Sea. A large number of those involved with the new campaign comes from the parish of Kilcommon, which includes the refinery site and all of the intended pipeline route. Many involved with PCC have resumed their involvment with Shell to Sea, as Shell and the government rejected the PCC proposal.
: Is it a contentious claim? Not very--even the settlers have said in many press interviews that they are trying to convince the Palestinians to leave, and even IDF spoksepeople are on record about the regular settler violence. UNWRA is a perfectly good source and no more partisan than most organisations involved with this subject. Of course the sentence in the article should state ''who'' attributes the exodus to this cause.
* "The settler campaign and the consequent economic deterioration succeeded in driving out most families with property in the Old City, who moved to newer neighborhoods with better infrastructure, services, and investment possibilities. The historic Old City became an urban slum. By the mid-1990s, only an estimated four hundred Palestinians were still living in the some twelve hundred historic buildings." (Anita Vitullo, People tied to place: strengthening cultural identity in Hebron's old city, ''J. Pal. Studies'', Vol 33, No. 1, 2003, p68-83.)
* Nora Barrows-Friedman, "MIDEAST: ISRAELI OCCUPATION LEAVES HEBRON OCCUPIED, AND DESERTED", ''Inter Press Service'', Jan 22, 2007 (title indicates contents accurately).
* Mel Frykberg, "Under pressure: Israeli settlers in Hebron are hellbent on persecuting the inhabitants of the area, in an effort to drive them out of town.", ''The Middle East'', Issue 372, 2006, p12 (title indicates contents accurately).
* "An eye for an eye deepens bitter divisions in biblical city of Hebron 'Nobody has put a gun to anybody's head'.", ''Irish Times'', 21 February 2004 (retiring leader of TIPH, Norwegian Jan Kristensen, told Haaretz that Palestinians were being driven out of the Israeli-controlled area of the city by attacks from settlers as well as Israeli army heavy-handedness, including house demolitions and curfews. ""In a sense cleansing is being carried out," the Norwegian Jan Kristensen told Ha'aretz newspaper. "In other words, if the situation continues for another few years, the result will be that no Palestinians will remain there. It is a miracle they have managed to remain there until now."
* Btselem's 2003 report on the reasons for the Arab exodus: [http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200308_Hebron_Area_H2.asp]
* Meron Rapoport, "Ghost Town", ''Haaretz'', 17/11/2005 [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 Part 1]. [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646947 Part 2]
Actually this is a hard topic to search for due to there being no distinctive keywords. --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:If you can find enough good sources, and attribute it to them, then it's reasonable to make the claim. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No one is disputing that settler harassment exists, and there is no reason that a section discussing it can't be included. The problem is with the assertion that more than IDF movement restrictions on the whole neighbourhood, more than the closing of 2,000 shops, the actions of the tiny Hebron community resulted in the mass exodus of 20,000 individuals (a number that doesn't appear in the B'Tselem report, which cites no sum aside from the local number I mentioned below). That [[B'Tselem]]'s report summary chooses to grant prominence to that idea right before its conclusion that settlers are the primary ill and root cause of the other problems in Hebron, especially on the background of [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1173879123249 statements objecting to settler presence under any circumstances], should demand that we recognise and take into account its strong POV on the subject. Signs that something is wrong should be further apparent from the lack of these assertions actually appearing in the body of their [http://www.btselem.org/Download/200308_Hebron_Area_H2_Eng.pdf full report], which specifically mentions the "three streets" near the settlers and the 73 of 169 families who have left there, and no other figures. To Khoikhoi - you should realise that I initially removed an opinion piece (ie non RS), and not legitimate sourcing. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


PCC concentrates more on political [[lobbying]] and legal avenues than physical [[protest]], and have submitted an application to the [[European Commission]] seeking an injunction suspending State consents for the Mayo gas project. It publicly supports some Shell to Sea protest actions, but not all.
: I didn't really look for good sources for the actual numbers involved. It's a problem because many sources seem to be referring to limited areas that they don't define precisely. That seems to be true of the Btselem report - they are not referring to the whole of area H2. This bit of the article might need to become more vague until the ideal source (which surely exists) is found. --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 14:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That has been my point. The settler harassment exists, but it is unfair to grant it anywhere near the same weight as the curfews and travel restrictions. Moving it to the end of the sentence is a start, but despite the amount of space B'Tselem gives it, they do not make the claim that it is anywhere near the same order of magnitude. What would be wrong with removing it from this sentence and creating a passage discussing it? Ugly behaviour need not be exaggerated to berate it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Being as no one has moved to reflect the sources more accurately, lets take a look at what they say:
:*{{cite news |first=Meron |last=Rapoport |title=Ghost town |url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 |work=Haaretz |date=[[November 17]], [[2005]]}} "The closing of the shops and the prolonged curfew were both reasons for leaving. The ongoing harassment on the part of the settlers was another." It doesn't say who we were talking about (all of H2, the adjacent areas?). And if one were to take the position that it meant the 500 had harassed out the 20,000-30,000, they would need much better sourcing, since that is quite an exceptional claim.
:*[http://www.tiph.org/en/_skjult/Front_articles/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=1592 Harassment is not an isolated incident] Doesn't talk about harassment causing population decline
:*[http://www2.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/YAOI-6UN95C?OpenDocument Karen Koning AbuZayd] "Settler violence has forced out over half the Palestinian population '''in some neighborhoods in the downtown area''' of Hebron." That is very limited and can easily be understood to mean the areas adjacent to the settlers, as it describes their location quite accurately. Understanding it to mean 20,000 is again an exceptional claim.
:*[http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/a17e4c9ace4785bac1256d87004bca62 Israeli NGO issues damning report on situation in Hebron] This is a collection of quotes from the B'Tselem report. Lets look at the actual report instead.
:*{{cite web |url=http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/hebron/ |title=Friends of God: Peacemakers in Hebron |last=Young |first=Kaliya |work=Grace Cathedral |publisher=([[Christian Peacemaker Teams]])}} I didn't see any reference to harassment causing population decline.
:*{{cite web |url=http://www.cpt.org/hebron/levin/levin_28.htm |title=From The Inside Looking Out: Report #28 - While You Were Gone Episode II | |last=Levin |first=Jerry |date=[[December 19]], [[2003]] |work=Christian Peacemaker Teams}} Absolutely partisan piece, it also makes no reference to harassment causing population decline.
:*{{cite web |url=http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200308_Hebron_Area_H2.asp |title=Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians |date=[[August 2003]] |work=B'Tselem}} A summary of the B'Tselem report. Lets look at the actual report instead.
:*[http://www.btselem.org/Download/200308_Hebron_Area_H2_Eng.pdf Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians] (B'Tselem full report) Despite its title, the only specific claim to that effect is that "In total, 169 families lived on the three streets in September 2000, when the intifada began. Since then, seventy-three families – forty-three percent – have left their homes."
:I welcome evidence to the contrary, but as far as I could tell, all of the quoted sources that have any level of detail only associate the settler harassment with the limited departure of their immediate neighbours. Tying the harassment to the departure of 20,000 people alongside IDF restrictions etc. is an extreme, inaccurate, and unsourced claim that needs specific proof (which I don't think will be found, since it defies logic). Until such time as that proof can be produced, I will rewrite the passage to remove the incorrect implications of its current vagueness and to reflect what these sources actually say. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


==References==
:I've made a few changes to match the sources as well, hope they're ok with you. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
The Rapoport quote seems quite partisan and out of place. If the purpose was to find a number for how many have left, then a better source would be the best course. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[[Category:County Mayo]]
:In what way is it partisan? <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Energy in Connacht]]
It juxtaposes two statements for a rhetorical effect (the settlers are the cause) that couldn't be demonstrated directly. Otherwise, it adds no information that isn't already there in a noninflammatory phrasing. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland]]
[[Category:Royal Dutch Shell]]


{{poli-org-stub}}
::Fine, I've added info that wasn't already there. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Republic-of-Ireland-politics-stub}}
:I'm having trouble finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=122324187&oldid=122322566 newest passage] in the reference provided. Perhaps you have confused it with our discussion here, where that figure was tossed around, but in which Zero concluded that he couldn't get a number? <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Fixed. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:I don't mean to drive you crazy, but the "new" formulation is an extremely unclear statement that implies that ''far less'' than the ~10,000 figure originally there, which itself was removed because as Zero acknowledges above, it is hard to find specific numbers. Unless we can find such numbers, it makes sense to follow his advice that we be vague there. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree. You asked for a source giving numbers, so I provided one. There's no Wikipedia policy that says we have to give the exact figures. Please refrain from removing sourced information. You don't see me removing your bit about the attacks on the Isreali settlers. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:That is not sourced information, it is poorly sourced information. I understood Zero to have acknowledged that as well. No sources, mainstream or otherwise, claim that of 30,000, only a few thousand remain. A poorly worded phrase without any corroboration shouldn't be used to make such an assertion. The previous suggestion that we use a vaguer formulation until we can get accurate numbers is a far clearer way to present information accurately.
:As for the other reversions, I'm not sure why you decided to remove reference to the al-Aqsa intifada that the article, written in 2005, was clearly referring to when it says "in the last five years". I'm also not sure why you restored the "have been identified as a major cause of a decrease in H2's population" line, which ''I'' authored, and removed after you added a line ("Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly") to which it is now redundant. You also moved the passage about attacks on Israelis to the very end of the section, so that that key part of the post-Oslo history is left until after paragraphs describing all of the Israeli actions. The structure of the section as a whole leaves what to be desired, but I'm sure you can see the problem in that change. In the settlement passage, you restored the nonfactual version and removed wikilinks to the subjects of the sentences, as well as the poorly phrased sentence implying that there are multiple [[Israeli settlements]] within the city. I removed the "this process" line since as I stated in my edit summary, its quite unclear what the previous line to which it is referring means. I've clarified those sentences, but having you revert multiple edits without so much as a rationale in the edit summary when I stated my reasoning for making the changes is quite frustrating. I've in the past also explained my edits, and I don't think that I've yet given you reason to suspect my every contribution :-) Hope to keep working together, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

:As for the rest of the edit, I'm not sure why, but you again mass-reverted, seemingly without paying heed to my rationale, even after I pointed this out above (?). "Five years ago" from 2005, i.e. 2000, is indeed explicitly mentioned in relation to the [[al-Aqsa Intifada]]. However, even if it wasn't, that implication should be clear to anyone familiar with the subject matter, since there was no other event which any side would argue sparked the restrictions. You ''did'' say you could change the redundant line, but you didn't change it, and you actually ''added it back again''. As for the attacks on Israelis, you repeat that you think it is best at the end, but you didn't respond to my reasoning that that removes it from context, and I don't imagine that you are arguing that it was somehow in a separate sphere of reality from the Israeli restrictions that the passage dedicates so many words to. Beyond that, I'm not quite sure how you counted that 'the sources I cited were mostly the Israeli government', or what that is supposed to imply (hopefully not the assumption of bad faith that another user made plain), but I only included links to two sections of a single Israeli list of attacks. Even had I not included another link to a third party list, the assertion that the listing of these widely reported undisputed events by the Israelis (ranked most free media in ME, one place behind US) is somehow of equal weight with some [[Hamas]] statement that you imply you would otherwise use is absurd. I truly hope this is all some misunderstanding, because I am quite confused as to how these 'issues' are even issues. I'm not going to address in detail your reversion of the rest of my edit, since it replaces sourced information with unsourced [and somewhat nonsensical] statements. Please reread my edit's rationale with care, and don't again revert the changes that you don't even dispute. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::I mentioned the Jerusalem Post because you added it as a reference, but deleting my source at the same time, which I don't think is very fair. I already replaced the editorial with a news article. Again, ''please'' show me what part of [[WP:RS]] is being violated here. To dismiss it as an extreme claim is speculation verging on original research. We need figures for the number of Palestinians that have left H2, and I provided a source that gives them. I don't appreciate being labeled as the mass-reverter here, when you are doing the exact same thing. Upon reviewing the section again, I actually fail to see how "Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly" is redundant. Could you please elaborate? It seems like an improvement to me to have the attacks on Israelis at the end because it's better to have the Palestinian and Israeli POVs separated; having them all mixed together might confuse readers. And yes, when citing a biased source such as the Israeli government, you cannot state their side of the story as if everything is an undisputed fact. You will have to find third-party sources for that. There is no misunderstanding here. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I have not "mass-reverted". I undid the multiple deletions of things that you haven't given any reason for. I'm sure that if you look carefully you will see as much, essentially the reversion of anything that wasn't discussed here. The point isn't to label you, but to get you to stop removing such changes without any reason. As for the topics that you have addressed, WP:ATT and WP:RS before it long held that [[Wikipedia:Attribution#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources|Exceptional claims require exceptional sources]]: ''Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding...politically charged issues''. Being as there is no other source that gives a number remotely like the one you are presenting, it is not acceptable. As far as I know, it is not a claim made my anyone, though I can't prove a negative. As far as redundancy, putting aside that you seem to have agreed before, ''the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly'' and ''have been identified as a major cause of a decrease in H2's population'' modifying the same subject, in back to back sentences, is redundant stylistically, as well as repeating the same position twice. As for moving the attacks on the Israelis, they aren't a POV, they happened alongside the restrictions. We aren't taking a position on "who started it", but to separate the two parts of the "cycle of violence", if you don't mind cliche sound-bytes, removes them both from their context. I don't see what the reader could possibly be confused about. And no, again ignoring that I have hardly cited only the Israeli government, and that the Israelis are only used to supply a list of nondisputed events that are not even specifically mentioned in the entry, it is not a POV that needs to be qualified that "the Israeli settler community has been subject to many attacks by Palestinian militants". Calling them 'terror attacks' is a POV, but not that they happened. I would say we were making progress despite my not really understanding why you've adopted these positions (I mean this quite honestly), except that you've continued to remove sourced information and replace it with unsourced. I'm not sure how you could be unaware unless you are truly not reading through the diff, but please do. As I said before, the rationales were mentioned in the edit summaries. Were you to actually question any, which you haven't thus far, I could further explain if necessary, but the current wholesale reversion (not as rhetoric, bus as the only way I know to describe it)cannot continue. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, I could cite the Christian Peacemaker Teams if you want, because it's about as biased as some of the sources you're using (no offense), but you would probably dismiss it. That's why I cited an Israeli source. The two sentences are not redundant stylistically because they're saying different things. One is saying that the Palestinian population has decreased ''greatly'', and the other is stating that something is a major cause for it. Another reason why I moved the part about attacks on Israelis to the end of the section is because it seemed out of place. First we can mention a certain POV, then we can give the other. I don't see what's wrong with moving it down a bit. And yes, I am reading the diffs, I'm not blind reverting on anything like that. Your comment, "my not really understanding why you've adopted these positions", was that a question about how I've formed my personal opinions on the subject matter? Just wanting to be clear on what you're asking here. Regards, <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If you are reading the diffs, then can you please finally explain the reasoning for reverting the rest of my edit that you have yet to discuss above or anywhere (which I've asked for thrice now)? Also, could you quote the specific 'biased source' that I'm using and the statement that it is supporting, as you assert above? And out of curiousity, what Christian Peacemaker Teams number did you want to use, and have you found any other RS backing up your claim of "only a few thousand" from Rappaport? And as for redundancy, I'm not sure how to explain it clearer, other than you repeat the same fact twice by splitting one sentence into two (which was itself introduced after you added a second paraphrase from the same section of the same article). What do you believe is added in the second sentence (aside from the disputed "thousands" line)?:
:::*''...since the outbreak of the [[al-Aqsa Intifada]], '''the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly,''' the drop in large part having been identified with extended curfews and movement restrictions placed on Palestinian residents of the sector by the IDF, including the closing of Palestinian shops in certain areas.
:::*''...since the outbreak of the [[al-Aqsa Intifada]], '''the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly''' and the current figures show that only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live in this sector.<ref name="ghost"/> Extended curfews and movement restrictions placed on Palestinian residents of the sector by the IDF, including the closing of Palestinian shops in certain areas, have been identified as a major cause of '''a decrease in H2's population.'''''
:::I'm also confused as to why you keep calling the attacks on Israelis a 'point-of-view'; there is no opinion included at all, only an extremely compact summary of events concurrant with the Palestinian restrictions which are granted much more space. And why do you keep restoring the qualification that these attacks only happened "according to the Israeli government"? The "positions" I was referring to is what I see as odd editing from someone I know to be a reasonable editor. Again, please do not revert sourced material that you have not even registered opposition to. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

::::The biased source is [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm this]. As for Christian Peacemaker Teams, I was thinking of using [http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/hebron/ this one]. I've fixed the redundancy for you, so hopefully that's no longer an issue. As I said before, because you have cited the Israeli government as a source, it needs to be attributed properly. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry to say, but I'm having difficulty seeing your actions as totally in good faith at this point, since even if you were correct about that issue (ignoring my repeatedly pointing out that neither is that the only reference, nor is it anything other than a compilation of nondisputed events), it in no way justifies what is now your fourth wholesale revert of numerous ''sourced'' details that you have not even made an attempt to discuss, challenge, or even acknowledge that you have reverted, and your replacing them with ''unsourced'' [and sometimes contradictory] assertions. I know that you are committed to the policy, so I implore you, now that 'your version' has been protected, to make some effort to explain the entirety of your revert. If our perceptions of these events differ so greatly that we cannot both agree on the '''content''' of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=124545099&oldid=124304216 your edit], perhaps Mediation is in order? I say that not as some sort of threat, but because I honestly have no other idea as to why the gap between our positions is as large as it is, or how to bridge it other than to have a neutral user with experience in resolving disputes take a look. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Do you acknowledge that among your edits:
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=122629389&oldid=122629031 this edit (a)] was a reversion of my edits to that section, including the removal of the wikilink to the subject's entry and its sourcing;
# that you left '''no edit summary''';
# that the version you reverted to was unsourced (which led you to reinstate a small change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=123145335&oldid=123072432 rm unsourced info (b)];
# that when I added more sourcing to change the last part of that passage, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=123291960&oldid=123286450 reverted that as well (c)];
# that when I updated settler population information (edit summary:''...update population''), you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=124003059&oldid=124002574 reverted that as well (d)], along with the wikilink to that subject's entry and its sourcing;
# that you never mentioned any reasons for these removals at any point, and that I pointed out to you numerous times in both talk and edit summaries that you were reverting sourced information outside what was discussed on Talk, and that you insisted throughout that that was not the case;
# in one case where I specifically challenged your removal of reference to the [[al-Aqsa Intifada]] [which anyone familiar with this subject matter should know is the event in 2000 being referred to (!)], you mentioned above that "if that's what the source says, then feel free to add that info" - so you removed it without even bothering to check the source
It is on the basis of these edits where almost any information that I add is reverted unless I explicitly argue here, that I have said you are mass reverting. That this comes on the background of my exhaustively analysing sources to move one line (the previous discussion leading to this dispute) for which I had to argue you for every word, perhaps fits accurately with the revelation that you "stopped assuming good faith towards [me] a long time ago".

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

# you insist on using a quote from [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 this article] as a definitive source ("The number of Israelis hasn't changed, but the number of Palestinians has declined to a few thousand.") that "only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live in this sector"; I have repeatedly asked that this be confirmed with some other RS, or else be treated according to WP policy on extreme claims, especially on in light of the discussion above where other editors detailed that they were unable to find such sourcing; corroboration has yet to be provided
# while we also disagreed on the phrasing of this passage, I don't think there is any point discussing it until the previous issue is settled
# you continually preface the passage noting that there have been attacks on the settlers as "According to the Israeli government" as if it is their unique position that these events occurred, citing the reference to the Israeli Foreign Ministry's website's list of attacks ([http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm], [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm]) , while I have pointed out numerous times that neither is it anything more than a compilation of undisputed events, nor is that the only source provided ([http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_attacks.asp],[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 your own source],[[Shalhevet Pass|a sourced WP entry]]), but for some reason you've repeatedly ignored this. Ironically, you've now suggested inclusion of [http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/hebron/# this personal letter] from a partisan who spent three days in the city - how would you preface that, ''According to Kaliya Young, a "Friend of God" and undergraduate at UC Berkley''?
# you have decided that the passage noting that there have been attacks on the settlers is a "point-of-view", a designation which doesn't make very much sense to me. Regardless, you keep moving it to the end of the section on post Oslo Agreement history, divorcing it from the paragraphs dealing with Israeli restrictions as if it were some separate, unrelated reality, claiming that it would otherwise be confusing.
I believe I've gone above and beyond in responding in detail to the removal of sourced information, whose burden is not upon me. I truly hope that you will take the time to read through this, in good faith. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:If you can get hold of ''The Accidental Empire'' by Gershom Gorenberg, it gives a very detailed account of the Jewish settlement of Hebron in 1967. It is true that the occupation of the Park Hotel was a planned subterfuge. They booked the hotel overnight for a Passover seder and invited a large number of guests including many VIPs. After it was over, many of the guests left but a small core headed by Levinger remained. A source for this is Gorenberg, pages 143-150. Gorenberg reveals which members of the government were in on the plan.
:You changed the number of Jews living in Hebron to "800", but provided no source. The source in the article (the BBC) actually says 600. I've seen sources that go as low as 500 as well. Please cite reliable sources if you want to update the population. You can't say one thing in the article and have the source say another.
:As for the Rapoport quote, according to [[WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources]], "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by '''reliable news media'''." (emphasis mine) Haaretz is a reliable source, right? Therefore it meets the criteria.
:Yes, the paragraph should continue to say "According to Israeli government" as long as the sources you've cited are none other than the Israeli government. [http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_attacks.asp This source] only lists two incidents in Hebron, and the [[Shalhevet Pass]] article is about an individual (i.e. ''one person'').
:<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

As for the other edits that you mention, the claim that 25,000+ people left in five years is one that should be sourced to more than a vague comment in a colourful "feature" section, which should be quite simple if it is really accurate; the burden is doubled owing to the extensive search above ''not'' finding such evidence. As for qualifying the attacks on the Israeli settlers as only being a position of the Israeli government, I find that absurd, since no dispute surrounds simply recognising that they occurred. I also wish, as in the previous case, that you would have mentioned what your problems with the sources were upfront instead of repeating that the only sources were those of the Israelis, which is not the case. In any event, the text I employed is a faithful paraphrase of the passage in [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 your Haaretz article]. Additionally, simple Google searches yield hundreds of articles attesting that these events occurred, though [http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/index.html compilations] like those provided by the Israelis are hard to come by.

The same holds for the rest of the content which wasn't mentioned on Talk, which I detailed above, which I hope you will also address or stop reverting. In the future, I request that if you do believe information must be removed, you give a reason, and not assume (as I now suppose you must have) that I am mindlessly pushing some POV in bad faith, which my record on WP can attest that I don't do. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I've restored my version and await a response. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:If you wanted to change the number to 800, you should've added the sources to the article. However, I see that the references cited in the [[Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron]] happen to the Jerusalem Post again. I don't see how it's any more reliable than the BBC, so it would be better to give a range. And I don't even see the number of Jews living in Hebron being mentioned in the [[Moshe Levinger]] article. I still don't understand what Wikipedia policy/guideline prohibits the use of general figures (not precise ones). I'm sorry for being repetitive, but you've only continued to cite Israeli sources for your claims on the attacks against Israelis; you've given me a link the Jerusalem Post ''[http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/index.html once again]''. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting after '''51 seconds''' without so much as a response over '''the last three days''' is ridiculous. And to suddenly remember now ''another'' new reason for your reverts? Take a step back please, and consider that just maybe you aren't 100% correct here. [[The Jerusalem Post]] is an RS, and it is from this month, as opposed to the two-year old BBC source. The Levinger entry has sourcing for my changes to that section, while the version you've reverted to doesn't have any sourcing. And I've asked numerous times that you find some corroboration for the Haaretz quote. If no other media make mention of a similar figure, then it is not information we should include. And while we're at it, you again reverted the '''sourced''' section about the makeup of the settlers to the previous '''unsourced''' version, again, without at all acknowledging it or stating any reason. You should be attempting discussion ''before'' reverting. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

:<nowiki># 22:32, 28 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m Republic of Ararat (Reverted edits by Maestroka (talk) to last version by Khoikhoi) (top) [rollback]</nowiki>
:<nowiki># 01:09, 28 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi</nowiki>
:<nowiki># 05:09, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR</nowiki>

:And [http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=17503 here]'s an article dated "18/04/07", which clearly says "Currently, around 600 Israeli settlers live in the heart of the 120,000-150,000 strong Palestinian community in a state of constant friction with their neighbors and, often, with the Israeli army and police." As for Levinger, please give me quotes about what you're specifically talking about, just telling me to see the whole article doesn't help. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous that you were away, but that you managed a revert after ''less than a minute'', but didn't manage a response after more than three-hours of activity. As for what you are reverting:
# A [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22settlers.html?&pagewanted=print NYT] report dated 22/04/07 which says 700. I've not heard before of the source you are using, and I question the fact checking of the single reporter that does all of their ME work. I would have been happy to list a range had you provided current sources before.
# The Levinger text is on [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage=2 the second page]
# You continue to remove these links [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull][http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152794781&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull] and the text they support, replacing it with unsourced text.
# The demographic data for [[Kiryat Arba]] is sourced in that entry to the [[Israel Central Bureau of Statistics|Israeli CBS]]; please stop replacing that with an unsourced number.
# Palestinian attacks on the settlers are no one's POV; I already pointed out above that the phrasing is taken out of [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 your source] and provided a [http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/index.html compilation from an RS]. Moving them to after the discussion of Israeli restrictions divorces them from context, for which you need go no further than [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 your source] to see.
# I have requested multiple times a second source that makes the same claim "that only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live" in H2, which has not yet been provided. As such, there is no room for that claim, which is itself based on a vaguely worded sentence in a colourful feature, and not a regular news piece.

As I've preemted by quite specifically pointing out the rationale and sourcing for all of the information I've added (AFAIK), I expect that you will stop mass-reverting. I again would be thrilled to explain anything you like in discussion, but reversion of information as the first response as above ("As for Levinger..."), or because you couldn't find the source etc. is really not okay, and I expect an AGF that they say what I claim unless proven otherwise. Needless to say, you have never given any reason for removing the wikilinks and syntax corrections in my edits, and I hope you'll stop that as well. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:#A [http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=213200 CJP] article dated 04/11/2007 says 500. So does an article from [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/847084.html Haaretz].
:#I don't see anything [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage=2 here] that mentions that the Israeli settlers has been subject to stabbings, rounds, etc.
:#Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz.
:#According to [http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.04-politics-israels-divided-soul/ The Walrus], ''“Israel in an ideological project,” said Elyakim Haetzni, a lawyer and a founder of the settlement movement, who vows not to move from his home in Kiryat Arba, a whitewashed town of 6,500 people in the occupied territories.''
:#As I said before, all the sources you are citing are Israeli. I could give plenty of Arab sources if I wanted, but you probably would reject them. I see no reason why it should be different the other way around. Again, find ''third-party'' sources.
:#The source I cited meets [[WP:RS]] because Haaretz goes into the classification of "reliable news media", as mentioned in the policy.

:<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

# I already agreed on a compromise here once you provided sources (though the source you are citing is [[Deutsche Presse-Agentur|DPA]], not "Combined Jewish Philanthropies")
# I said "The '''Levinger''' text is on [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage=2 the second page]"
# you say: "Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz." Assuming that was correct, I don't see why you would think that justifies removing [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull][http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152794781&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull] and the text they support, or replacing it with unsourced text?
# Are you arguing that [http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.04-politics-israels-divided-soul/ this 2006 article] is a better source of census data for Israelis than the [[Israel Central Bureau of Statistics]]' [http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table3.pdf report for 2007]?
# Why do you keep ignoring that I'm using [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=646948 your own source] corroborated by the [[The Jerusalem Post]]'s [http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/index.html compilation] as well as the Israeli list and the ADL list? I challenge you to find an RS, "Arab" or otherwise, that says these events did not happen. These are undisputed events which can be individually verified to any source you want.
# So your RS then cannot make an error? How would you respond to me making a major claim based on a vaguely worded source, and refusing to find any corroboration for it. I've been asking for weeks that you find another RS that makes that claim, and you have yet to produce one. I've already mentioned that ATT demands multiple RS, not just one, especially in 'politically charged' issues.

In the single case where you supplied a counter-reference, I immediately altered the text (Hebron settler population). There is no reason for you to keep reverting sourced information because you read the wrong link, or as a punitive measure, especially since I've explained every edit in depth and am willing to clarify any other point. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

== Origins of Hebron ==

The Southern hill fortress of Hebron has been a stronghold of the Hebrew since ancient times. The name itself translates to Hebr-on, city of the Hebr (Hebrews). The legendary Anakim who dwelt at Hebron may reflect a myth attributed to the Canaanite Hyksos Dynasty which ruled the area between 1700 and 1500 BC. The Anakim chieftan Sheshai, is identical to the Hyksos prince "Sheshi" who ruled c. 1600 BC. --[[User:71.215.155.5|71.215.155.5]] 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you could point us to some sourcing for that, we would be glad to incorporate it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Current issues on the page ==

Could one or other of the opposing sides here please outline the most significant area of disagreement or issue between the two versions, and state what the two opposing views are? I'm sure we can solve all these issues if we tackle them one at a time. What is the first area of disagreement? '''One''' issue only please. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Okay then, an outstanding issue at this point is the continued removal of these references<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull|title=Hebron settlers try to buy more homes|author=Yaakov Katz and Tovah Lazaroff|publisher=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|date=[[April 14]], [[2007]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152794781&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull|title=Hebron settlers give up comfort to expand Jewish holdings|author=Tovah Lazaroff|publisher=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|date=[[April 15]], [[2007]]}}</ref> and the statement they source (''Before long this received Israeli government approval and a further three Jewish enclaves in the city were established with army assistance, and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city'') and its replacement with an unsourced statement which relates less directly to the city (''This process of expansion of the Jewish presence is continuing and there are now more than 20 Jewish settlements in and around the city.''). The solitary rationale presented for the removal was ''Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz.'' <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems straightforward enough. Are there any objections to replacing
*''This process of expansion of the Jewish presence is continuing and there are now more than 20 Jewish settlements in and around the city.''
with
*''Before long this received Israeli government approval and a further three Jewish enclaves in the city were established with army assistance, and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city.'' <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull|title=Hebron settlers try to buy more homes|author=Yaakov Katz and Tovah Lazaroff|publisher=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|date=[[April 14]], [[2007]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152794781&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull|title=Hebron settlers give up comfort to expand Jewish holdings|author=Tovah Lazaroff|publisher=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|date=[[April 15]], [[2007]]}}</ref>
Please state the specific objections, if there are any. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have no objections to changing that sentence. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Another issue then: "''Rabbi [[Moshe Levinger]] rented out the main hotel in Hebron, and then refused to leave.''" is continually replaced with the unsourced (and over-linked) "''[[Rabbi]] [[Moshe Levinger]], took over the main hotel in Hebron and refused to leave.''", despite the source I presented multiple times saying [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage=2 He rented rooms in an Arab hotel, in order to hold a Passover Seder. Then he refused to leave.]. There has been no reason stated for this removal. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:The source doesn't seem to agree with either claim. Why not just say what the source says? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. According to ''The Link'':

<blockquote>Kiryat Arba was founded by Rabbi Moshe Levinger and his wife, Miriam. In 1968, the rabbi and a band of armed cronies, posing as Swiss tourists, took over the only hotel in Hebron and stated that they did not intend to leave. To appease them, the army gave them an abandoned military camp on the outskirts of Hebron. [http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=102&aid=146&pg=2]</blockquote>

<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 04:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:(Edit conflict) The source says "He rented rooms in an Arab hotel, in order to hold a Passover Seder. Then he refused to leave." I agree with putting that in, if that is what you are saying. The [http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=102&aid=146&pg=2 source just presented by Khoikhoi] seems to take a partisan line ("cronies") and is written by a member of a [[Christian Peacemaker Teams|Christian Peacemaker Team]], while the former is an article in [[The New Yorker]]. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::The AMEU source does not seem particularly neutral or reliable; on the contrary, it is highly partisan. Note, for example, the use of the phrase "armied cronies" in this particular article. The New Yorker source is much better; the latter should be used, and the former not used. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 04:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

<blockquote>Israeli governments have a record of yielding to the settlers. Labor caved in when Moshe Levinger, in 1968, took over the Park Hotel in Hebron; it then permitted him and his followers to establish Kiryat Arba overlooking Hebron. [http://www.challenge-mag.com/88/Langfur.htm]</blockquote>

<tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:[http://www.challenge-mag.com/index.html "CHALLENGE is a leftist magazine focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a global context."] That is not similar to [[The New Yorker]]. Not that it matters, but the assertion that Levinger rented the building is further implied by the whole line about "Swiss tourists", and is not at odds with the later refusal to leave, which seems to me to be what is referred to in your sources by the "taken over". ''(Note: I am shortening the quotation you supplied to just the relevant line in the interest of keeping the conversation easy to follow.)'' <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 05:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::Making an assumption like that would be original research, woudln't it? I know you have sources for your claim, but so do I. Maybe we should include both per [[WP:V]]. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:I mentioned that the assumption of "no contradiction" was only tangential. What was important was that ''Challenge'' is little known self-described partisan, while [[The New Yorker]] is a mainstream RS. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
''Challenge'' is a little-known partisan magazine with a specific agenda; ''[[The New Yorker]]'' is a well-known highly respected magazine, which tends to hew towards the center on issues. ''The New Yorker'' is the only reliable source used so far; it should be relied on here. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)



== Under the British mandate ==

::'''''current version:'''''
In December 1917 and during [[World War I]], the British occupied Hebron. In 1929, following disturbances in Jerusalem between members of [[Vladimir Jabotinsky]]'s [[Betar]] movement and Arabs incited by the [[Mufti of Jerusalem]], some Arab Hebronites returned, assisted by many others from the countrside, and conducted a [[pogrom]] among Hebron's ancient Jewish community, in what was to become known as the infamous [[1929 Hebron massacre]], in which according to many sources 67 Jews were killed<ref>Moshe Dayan, ''Story of My Life'' 1976 p.38</ref> and according to others 59 , three of them American [[yeshiva]] students<ref>Martin Gilbert, ''A History of the Twentieth Century'' 1997 vol.2 p.755. For a vivid novelistic account of the impact this massacre had on an American rabbinical family see Chaim Potok,''In the Beginning'',1976 pp.266ff</ref> and 60 wounded. In addition, Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked. The Jewish community had heeded the British administration's guarantee to protect them if they refrained from provoking the Arabs, instead of accepting the offer of the Jewish self-defence league in Jerusalem for armed assistence in the case of an Arab assault<ref>[[1929 Hebron massacre]]</ref>. Many of those who survived, however, avoided the murderous rampage thanks to the interventions of some of their Arab neighbours<ref>(1) [[1929 Hebron massacre]]: (2)[[Noam Chomsky]],''Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians,1999 p.176</ref> Two years later, 35 families moved back into the ruins of the Jewish quarter, but after further riots, the British Government decided to move all Jews out of Hebron ''to prevent another massacre'' Hebron remained as a part of the British mandate until 1948.

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

===talk===
# current version seems a bit unintelligible for smooth reading/legibility.
# i can understand where the issue of a few sources that testify to a different number of casualties pose a problem for this paragraph, however, best i'm aware - apart from a couple of "new historians", the consensus is that the casualty number was at 66 or 67... - in any event, a dispute such as this should be brought up on the 1929 massacre page (with all the references) rather than on the subsection of "hebron under the british mandate".
# the paragraph suggesting the jews in hebron of 1929 harrassed the local population seems tendeous and not well refrenced, esp. considering the note that the riots had their root start after friday sermons.. this, like the rest should be noted on the 1929 massacre article rather than on the stub "under the mandate cat.
-- <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 14:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

::# As to style, de gustibus. But many of my edits are purely stylistic (the word 'harangue' of the Jewish elder's approach to the British authorities in Hebron, for example, sounds to my ears as a harsh expression, and possibly insinuating a certain lack of 'dignity'. It means normally to subject someone to a vehement tirade. If you check the longer OED you will see that the neutral meaning is rather old. Harangue has pejorative connotations, at least to English ears.)
Regards[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:The current version links to [[1929 Hebron Massacre]], which has extensive detail, including reference from the relevant primary sources. In general we try to keep the detail on the main entries, because once one or two get brought across, neutrality would often dictate that far more appear. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 06:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::I hadn't noticed this before my edit. Give me time to reconsider. The material I introduced to the Hebron page wasn't on the Hebron Massacre site. Perhaps it could be placed there, but people there have objected to one of my sources, I think irrationally. On reflection, it could go to the Massacre site, as you suggest. I'll adjust myself tomorrow.
Could I add a suggestion? The ancient history side is very thin. I should think several out there could provide the site with a detailed history of Hebron in the Bible, which at the moment is sorely missed.
Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

== Reliable sources ==

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles in general, and polemic political works by linguists are not considered reliable sources for history. Any edits using these sources (or sourced with "fact" tags) will simply be reverted from hereon in, and if any of the edit summaries refer to "censorship" again, they will be reverted using admin rollback. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:On another note and in reply to the above, part of the material you are adding is covered on [[1929 Hebron massacre]], and part of it on its parent article, [[1929 Palestine riots]]. Selecting some details from the most general entry about events in a different place violates our policies on neutrality. Regarding the biblical information, you are right that this is a natural place, but on the other hand we must be careful about not presenting specific interpretations of the text as objective understanding, or of including too much of what is just one source, however significant for various religions. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apropos my edit:


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

(1) It is considered by Jews a holy city (correct). Since 166,000 Arab inhabitants also have a view about the city, the balancing remark about them viewing it as a an outpost of Jewish colonization is required.
(2) Bedouin requires upper case not ‘bedouin’) as you insist. See relevant Wiki link article. The lower case is demeaning.
(3) 1834{{Fact|date=July 2007}} that must be kept in because links or references holp the reader contextualize the event within other pogroms of the period in Arab lands, for example that of Damascus.
(4) On the massacre 1929, the text you give asserts an historically contested figure. I see no grounds for contesting on the Deir Yassin page, the opening para. which quotes both figures, those of a ‘consesnsus’ and those of Milstein. I am consistent on this, those who insist on one date here are not.
(5) The 58 synagogues destroyed refers to the whole of the West Bank, not to Hebron. One might as well cite here the fact that in the last 60 years (Meron Benveniste) 2000 Arab villages have been bulldozed, along with mosques, and been renamed with Jewish nomenclature. This is a page on Hebron. Detailed references to exactly what the Arab population did to Jewish sites is welcome, but tendentious confusion of Hebron with the whole of the West Bank only generates futile text duels
(6) I find The change in resiting Lustik is incomprehensible. That event occurred immediately after the 1967 war, and should be kept there, not posted much further down below, something which creates a confusing page.
(7) Palestinians/Palestinian terrorists. If ‘terrorist’ is to stand here, then one must introduce ‘Jewish terrorist’ for Baruch Goldstein . If anyone prefers ‘Palestinian terrorist’, then NPOV rules oblige him/her to use the same designation of Baruch Goldstein. I prefer to omit ‘Palestinian terrorist’. Note that I did not then rush to brand Baruch Goldstein a terrorist. Any other solution involves POV problems.
(8) ‘before the mob overtook and killed him’. ‘Mob’ is a correct term for the mass of Palestinians who slaughtered Jews in 1929. It is not an appropriate term, being strongly derogative, of survivors of a massacre turning on their assailant. Ian Lustik, whose authority no one contests, suggests the proper words nfor such a spontaneous lynching of a killer as ‘outraged survivors’. That is objective, and the point is sourced reliably.Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC))
:Chomsky is a linguist who also writes polemical political works. He is not a reliable source when it comes to history, particularly that of one of the favorite objects of his ire, Israel. Please take me very seriously when I say that if I see ''any'' claims attributed to Chomsky in this article in the future, I will revert ''all'' edits made. Find reliable historians for your claims. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::Furthermore, the same points which ''I'' raised above about selecting some details from events covered at length in their own, neutral and consensus-based entries still hold. And please stop the extensive quotations from scripture, especially adding interpretations which while not controversial, are not an objective representation of the material either, as well as removing the description of "militant". The rest of your issues seem to stem from a lack of familiarity with the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:I didn't say that scripture had no place, but that we are crossing the line to too much (combined with the interpretations being added). The main problem, which I've pointed out thrice, is the insertion of details regarding the [[1929 Hebron massacre]] and [[1929 Palestine riots]] in place of the brief summary. As I said above, the rest of your differences seem to regard style, which is why I referred you to the Manual of style. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


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

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

:I don't appreciate your misrepresenting the edit - the word you are removing is the neutral "militant". And yes, I don't like replacing a neutral summary with [[Wikipedia:Content forking|a content fork]] of information extant in a consensus and neutral version. As you are on your fifth revert in 24 hours, I highly suggest you self-revert. As you are new and might not be aware of the rule, I've informed you explicitly, but you could be blocked if you revert again. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 17:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

ps. To anyone who thinks it is intelligent to work under these conditions, the 18th century date for Abraham at Hebron is highly problematical, because it does not fit into Hittite chronology. There are many academic debates on this. But the date itself as it is, is stupid. It is not an historical date, but one of several dates one obtains by internal biblical reckoning, each producing difficulties when one endeavours to fit the chosen date with external chronological evidence from the several relevant circumambient empires. There are about a hundred things like that which require adjustment and qualification. But until the passion for challenging other people's edits prove less seductive than actually reading up technically and historically on the topic under discussion, evidently, it is a futile waste of time trying to correct the jerry-built pseuds' corner consensuses that appear to prevail on wikipedia's many non scientific pages. It's a shame too that nothing is said of Hebron's Ishaq al-Shami here. The heavy silences outweigh the less than voluble facts. The thugs of Kiryat Arba have this game skun, as they say in the Antipodes[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:Nishandani, it's rather bizarre to insert material into an article along with "citation needed" tag. Put in material from reliable sources, don't just insert it on the hope that some reliable source might be found some day. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

==Jayjg re bizarre practices==

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

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

You misunderstand the adjustment. I am not obliged to put in material for reliable sources in regard to the seals, but the person who posted that link is required to do so. So check back, find who put it in improperly, and take up your advice to him about 'bizarre' practices, not to me. If you don’t do so, I will interpret it as another example of using double standards. p.s.I hope you can take time out to dedicate a moment to checking note 5, the Jewish Virtual Library article on Hebron, cited here to document two claims (1) that Hebron is regarded by the government of Israel as part of 'Greater Israel' and (2) that the combined Jewish population is 'approximately 7,000 Israelis'.
Regards 'Nishandani' or, as I prefer,[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 18:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:First, I've made far more than 28,000 edits. Second, it is ''you'' who err; anyone who inserts material into an article must be prepared to provide reliable sources supporting it. If ''you'' insert it, then ''you'' become responsible for sourcing it. Third, please comment on article content, not other editors, per [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not read what I wrote. I did not insert the material into an article. I removed material from an article that was improperly sourced. The insertion I made, in respect for the poster who made the false link, was simply the courtesy reminder of 'citation required'. Since you are not particularly civil, in this regard (note the insistance, here and elsewhere, on mispelling my username), I suggest you repeat the suggestion when you shave in a morning, i.e., to a mirror.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 23:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
:I did read your post. Regarding your username, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]; if I have mispelled it, it was an innocent error, not some dastardly plan. Please focus on article content, not other editors. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Because it needlessly reduplicates the preceding:</BR>

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

== Issues to be resolved ==

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

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

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

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

:(1) the information precedes the baruch golstein attack and puts it in proper context as to the oslo agreements and the following violence.
:(2) there is no "suspicion" about the group he's affiliated with, and this is evident even with the pro-palestinian source that calls him "activist".
:(3) this may be a bit straight forward, but i've readmitted this info. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

was edited by yourself =

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

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

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

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

Fix the damage your editing created, please

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

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

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

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

- short response: by no means do i justify goldstein's heinous attack, however - a timeline of attacks simply puts his actions, and the actions of others into context. personally, i'm guessing he was not evil, but only blew a fuse and did a horrible horrible act... but that's a POV, and who knows, perhaps he was a racist bad person to his core and his actions had nothing to do with the surrounding events. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== violence. ==

there seems to be an objection to the text about the 7 fatal terrorist attacks (in three months) in the West Bank, near Hebron to precede the baruch goldstein text, personally, i think it's a very (1) important part of the "post-oslo-violence" and by all means (2) precedes the heinous goldstein attack chronologically. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

::very well, i'll rephrase it when the 3RR thing is over to be better connected to hebron than the way it was phrased before. to be honest, i think that a complete removal is harsh and could be regarded as blanking due to the removal of hebron related encyclopedic material, regardless of the confusing phrasing. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Conclusion. The note is irrelevant and should be removed. I will if no one else does. It should be replaced either with an updated source on recent demographics, or a ‘citation needed’ under the figures for the inner city settlers (600-800) and the Kiryat Arba figure(7000)
<sub>the previous unsigned text was written by [[User:Nishidani]] at 09:54, 30 July 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebron&diff=next&oldid=148020529]</sub>

::i tend to agree, this reference is not very good. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:All Israeli municipality figures on Wikipedia are sourced to the [[Israel Central Bureau of Statistics]] numbers; the other issues you seem to have are also sourced on their entries. Please stop removing the [[LMLK]] link and inserting commentary that is not about Hebron. Also, the extensive passages on observers constitute [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|undue weight]]...some of the other things you mention like the 'Hebronite patois' were introduced by yourself. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:::(3) The seal link is to another Wiki page. To quote Jayjg (1929 Hebron massacre):</BR>
:::::'Hi. Please be aware that '''Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes'''; among other things, they can change from moment to moment. Also, please find reliable sources from historians, not polemical political writers for your claims. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)'

:::By insisting on restoring the seal ref. to a wiki page you violate the rule Jayjg cited here. I kept the evidence and simply provided an extra-Wiki source, a clearer one, for the same material. If you have any problems with this take it up with Jayjg, not with me.
Note 1 which you restore, was a BBC article on 2 soldiers being shot, used earlier to support the statistics.
::::'Please stop . . inserting commentary that is not about Hebron.'

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

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

:::I didn't 'introduce' this passage. I modified the section written by others which had a derogatory insinuation about Palestinian Hebronites' attitudes to Jews (unsourced by the way). Why an ostensible idiom in Hebronite Arabic about ''hirbe al yahud'' is an appropriate gloss on Tel Rumeida escapes me. By all means remove the whole phrase. I think it is irrelevant, but so far I have let it stand.
::::'the extensive passages on observers constitute [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|undue weight]]'

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

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

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

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

::::(a)'another 7,000 Israelis live in the suburb of Kiryat Arba on the outskirts of Hebron.' </BR>
:::: (b) 'Also located near Hebron is the urban Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, which is home to approximately 7,000 Israelis and is considered by Israel to be a part of "greater Hebron".[4]'</BR>

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

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

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

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

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

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

== fund-raising ==
'''Hertz'''
The Jerusalem Post articles, on p.2 says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani, the main problem with your edit is that it is adding excessive amounts of detail only indirectly related to this general survey of this city. Who funds [[Israeli settler]]s and whether it is legal is a discussion that should take place on that entry, or perhaps that of the specific group in question, [[Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron]]. Like the previous issues with the 1929 massacre, the same goes for the extensive separate section on foreign volunteers etc. - only the most relevant details like the brief mention of settler harassment and violence and the one notable occurrence of them being killed should exist here, there rest on their respective entries. As for some of the details, by Israeli municipality I was referring to [[Kiryat Arba]]; if you meant the Israeli settlement in Hebron, then that also has a sourced entry (above). I don't understand why you keep removing the link to the main LMLK entry; Jayjg cited the policy on reliable sources that excludes Wikipedia, not saying to do away with interwiki links. I'm sure you aren't doing it intentionally, but you should be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|policy on making a point]]. You are mistaken, as I did not keep the BBC reference. I'm not sure what the Tel Rumeida issue was, but I preserved that change of yours as well. Of course I agree with and applaud any efforts to expand the general history. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:the Masoretic Hebrew Torah calculation would give Abraham's life as 1812 BCE-1637 BC.
:Book of Jubilees yields calculations that locate the birth around 1886

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

:The Greek Septuagint even lower.

:Traditional Christian chronologies place him earlier in 2008

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

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

::It is nice to apply the rules when they back your own perspective. It is objective to apply the rules independently of whether they promote your personal perspective or not. Much of what is questionable, what infringes Wiki rules, stays there unnoticed (Kiryat Arba mentions, Dov Lior and a dozen other things I haven't touched yet).Regards nonetheless [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 15:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep complaining about the 'Jewish narrative of Hebron' etc., when few if any of your edits to the general history have been challenged. Again, you are welcome and encouraged to expand those sections based on reliable sources to a more universal perspective. Your problems with Kiryat Arba, AFAICT, are new ones unrelated to your previous edits. I've explained, though, the problem with your rationale vis-a-vis the LMLK wikilink - we are supposed to link to entries being discussed where applicable. That is different than introducing a controversial claim sourced to a Wikipedia page, which seems to have been Jayjg's problem - again, please ensure that you aren't just [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|making a point]]. And yes, 'brief and notable' are generally the way to go in this sort of entry, otherwise we are lending [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight|undue weight]]. That is aside from the fact that the whole tax passage is based on your own [[Wikipedia:No original research|original synthesis]], and that we don't [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|"balance"]] one negative statement by finding another strike against the other. As for the whole discussion of biblical dating etc., please only discuss points relevant to ''this'' page, and make sure that they are both sourced and universal positions, and not your own observations. Good luck, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]

Dear Tewfik. You are confusing my clarifications on this talk page, with the succinct entries I have made on the text. The tax passage as Hertz showed was phrased badly, and violated [[Wikipedia:No original research|original synthesis]]. It was rewritten,closely paraphrasing the remark in the cited article. The problem was removed, and Hertz and I thought it best to remove both. This I will now do, since the vote so far is 2 against one.

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

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

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

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

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

:I do appreciate that you are not mass-reverting, but I can't say that I agree with much of your edit. First of all, I have already pointed you to check the [[Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron]]'s population on its entry, where the 600-800 number is sourced to recently published articles. The JVL source is OTOH older and not updated. As for Abraham, I did not insert the 18th century bit, and you are correct that it should not appear here, but by the same token, no other part of the [[biblical chronology]] should either, as it is not specifically relevant to ''this'' entry. I disagree that the Arafat passage should be removed, as it ''is'' directly discussing Hebron (specifically why some rehabilitation did not take place), but I will let it stand until we get input from others (although be advised that Wikipedia works based on [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], not [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy|majority rules]]). <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

(3) Will reply to rest when I've finished watering my tomatoes and culling my salads. Regards[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly there is a problem.

Till tomorrow, good evening[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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


::[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]

In your disagreement with CJCurrie, I think you are wrong. Goldstein's act in many sources is attributed, among many other motivations, to an attempt to block the incipient political agreements, coming straighton after the Oslo declaration of Principles and before the Oslo Interim Agreement. The flow of the text does not follow an understandable timeline. I hope, finally, that it is not a matter of you, I or anyone else undertaking to 'write' a problematical section, but of discussion and collaborative writing. Secondly from your note you seem, perhaps I am wrong, to confuse the Ist with the Second Intifada, which was precisely Currie's point. You are placing before the Goldstein massacre, a long documentation of Palestinian attack including the 2nd Intifada. In historical writing this is called ''hysteron proteron'' or putting the cart before the horse. This is not, surely, a subjective matter. The page should give the history in sequence, main events, and then develop specific aspects glossing them.
:General information about Arafat should go on the Arafat page, but if the information is specifically explaining why reconstruction was not done in Hebron, then it belongs in this article. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::Right. I have no problem with a shorter and more concise passage, but NPOV isn't about balancing one "bad" with another. The discussion about the Hebron settlers' fundraising may deserve mention in [[Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron|their entry]]. As for Judea, I'm still not sure of what the problem is, as it is indeed the historic region's name, irrespective of its use by Israel to the exclusion of modern political terms like [[West Bank]], which are in any event [appropriately] mentioned. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== Amoruso ==
Does anyone have the decency here to ask 'Amoruso' to motivate his reverts? Hertz? Tewfik? Jaacobou? Currie? I'm quite familiar with the old game of stringing in a hardened campaigner to stump the trenches in a war of attrition, while old hands quietly kibitz? I hope dearly this will not be the case here. I do not seek consensus on my edits, but I do expect rational discussion before challenges are made [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:I rise to the challenge, espec. if the alternative is to be thought lacking in decency. So much about the subject of Hebron appears to be of a highly sensitive and controversial nature and to require stepping very lightly. If we can agree on that (& I trust we can), it would be prudent for not only Amoruso but '''everyone''' here to try for rational discussion before making any but the most trivial changes. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

===Nishidani===
You are being highly impolite with your reverts. Your massive changes should come after discussions. You can't just remove Kiryat Arba statistics without any rational, nor may you decide on your own that Hebron is in a Palestinian West Bank and not in Judea, for instance. Cheers, [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] . Precisely because of the controversial nature, I have endeavoured over the past week to try and get a sense of principles established so we can work through the text. I have no illusions about the rifts which separate us, but the article has to be written properly, and collaboratively.

::[[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] I have not removed Kiryat Arba 'without any rationale'. Had you taken the trouble to read the talk page before jumping to revert, you would have noticed that it has been touched on several times. Kiryat Arba technically is outside the confines of the town of Hebron, and has its own separate page. I think Tewfik understands this, since he has not challenged the edit. I did not decide on my own that Hebron is a Palestinian city. It is on the West Bank, and the area is the Biblical Judea. That term is not used in international protocols regarding negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Judea as a geopolitical term is a highly charged word used by settlers and their supporters within land that is not part of Israel. To use it in any other than its Biblical sense, at least as the politics of territory stand at the moment, is tendentious. Nearly all Wiki sister pages, apart from two, the Russian and Japanese ones, that I have consulted, define Hebron as a West bank city', and the majority do not mention Judea.Cheers indeed [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] , if you bothered to read the past discussions you would see that there are many sources citing the Kiryat Arba population as part of Hebron, as it should if you were familar with the geography of the place. Therefore this goes back. Secondly, Judea is a geographic factual term, used by the United Nations prior to the use of West Bank. Do not push your POV or atleast do it without falsely claiming that it's only a biblical term (which is ridicilous) or that it's a term used by "settlers" whatever that racist comment means. As for other wiki projects, it's again irrelevant , I don't know why you keep saying that. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]]
Well I haven't checked back more than 6 months. Oblige me therefore by citing the technical literature sourcing Kiryat Arba as an integral part of Hebron. I don't mean newspaper articles, or opinions. If Kiryat Arba is part of Hebron, you'd better alter all of the inset details about its Mayor, who is an Arab, and the muncipality. Do't blame me, blame history.

::::(2) Secondly, Judea is a geographic factual term, used by the United Nations prior to the use of West Bank.

You're referring to an earlier historic period, just as 'Palestine' referred to all the area prior, by the United Nations, before the creation of the state of Israel. To insist on this is meaningless.

::::(3)Do not push your POV or atleast do it without falsely claiming that it's only a biblical term.

That is technically known in philosophy as 'the pot calling the kettle black'. I'm an not pressing my POV, I am insisting that the text be redacted not according to hearsay, from hereon in, but via discussion, in which only reliable sources are cited.

:::Please be so kind as to not post on my talk page threats or misleading charges. I reverted your original alterations, which were done without reading recent discussions. Successively I altered every time specific phrasing without using the undo button. Check the process. You have my permission to alter my talk page and remove the offensive slander you posted there.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::You cited the fact that Hebron has an Arab mayor but that has no connection to our issue. Kiryat Arba by the sources cited is considered a suburb of Hebron. What exactly don't you understand about this fact ? As for earlier historic period, that's your original research, the term is not called Palestine either, as we know the "West Bank" also has almost 300,000 Israelis and Jews, and it's not Palestinian. The West Bank is POV and both terms are geographic, whether you like it or not. West Bank is in fact a jordanian geographic perspective. You have indeed violated 3RR on the article (your accusation of slander made me laugh though, thanks) and you would probaby receive a ban. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::This is not a debate between you and me, in which one is right and one is wrong. You have challenged the page as you recently found it, a page that existed in that state as a result of extensive discussion and negotation between several people, Jaacobou, Tewfik, Hertz and myself. All changes were done in the light of a relatively civil discussion. The page was not substantially altered (you attribute to me 'massive' edits) over the last few days. Had any of the others thought as you did, they would, I presume, have registered their disapproval. So, if you disagree, by all means, let's discuss it, several of us. (a) provide us with with official sources (for this is a technical definition determined by diplomatic protocols) that classify Kiryat Arba as an integral part of the city of Hebron. Please note that I am not pushing my line: nearly all respectable Wiki pages in 9 languages reflect the distinction I reestablished.(2) Do not use the loaded term 'original research' to classify my remark that just as Judea was the Biblical term for the area, so Palestine was the standard term used until 1948. To know that is not 'original research', it is part of any respectable middle school historical curriculum.


::'the term is not called Palestine either, as we know the "West Bank" also has almost 300,000 Israelis and Jews, and it's not Palestinian.'

I can't comment on this because it is incomprehensible in English. If you wish to believe what it appears to assert by all means be my guest. But the protocols governing the definition of that territory determine usage, not our respective POVs.

::The West Bank is POV. Oh really. Of course 'Judea' and 'Samaria' are not POV.

::'You have indeed violated 3RR on the article.'

Let me surmise that the point of your reverting twice was to try to push me into receiving a ban on having 3 reverts. I was aware of this, and did not make automatic reverts, in successive edits, I altered the text yes, but on each occasion differently. Sorry, it didn't work. But if you believe I did fall into the trap, by all means document it and report me to the police.

This mode of converse is ridiculous. If you dislike the text. Set forth the reasons, and document them. Fish out the proof that Kiryat Arba is, as the text once asserted, 'recognized by Israel as part of greater Hebron', a phrasing I challenged to be justified by a source for weeks, and no one could come up with a reliable source to justify it. If you can source the assertion reliably, and document it as a politically recognized reality, then I will have no problem in accepting your evidence. But I will subject it to the strictest controls of verification. Now, can we begin to document our respective assertions, with some pacific collegiality?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::ps. re'the Kiryat Arba population as part of Hebron, as it should if you were familar with the geography of the place.'

On a private note, I was there probably before you were born, and I lived and worked in Israel, and travelled intensively from the Golan to the Sinai with my Israeli hosts, following in the steps of my own father and uncle, who fought the Axis armies from Libya to Syria. I even walked against soldiers advice through the city of Gaza, and came out, I gather alive, after several hours [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Nishidani, first of all altering the text and playing with 3RR is not allowed. You are obviously a NEWBIE and I won't bite you, but you should read [[WP:3RR]]. The lead, including the Kiryat Arba fact (though it was further down the lead per a compromise reached) was established long before you entered wikipedia and apparently started this mess. You need to respect long-standing compromises without acting solo like you're doing here. Please try to deliver your points more succinctly and not take up all the page making the material unintelligible for the reader. As for Judea and Samaria, you haven't provided any proof to your claim. The area is in fact called Judea, as well as the surrounding areas i.e Judean Mountains and so. Your personal experiences, fictious or real, do not interest me, thanks. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not entirely sure what the problem was, but to clarify, [[Judea]] is an historic region. The [[West Bank]] is a geopolitical region. Neither is exclusive to a nationality, either Palestinian or Israeli. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

== Kiryat Arba ==
::[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]

The problem is this.

::::Kiryat Arba is not a part of Hebron. It is not a suburb of Hebron. I could cite many technical sources, but no one seems to read them. So please look at the map at Jewish Virtual Library, here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hebron2000map.html,

::::which shows that according to established agreements negotiated between Israel and the Palestine National Authority, Hebron consists of two zones:-

''H1'' Under Palestinian Authority

''H2'' Municipal Area under Israeli rule, including the Old City with 700-800 settlers

The area of Kiryat Arba is placed in a third zone, Outside the City Limits (source:Jewish Virtual Library), in the ''West Bank'' (source Jewish Virtual Library).

For the record, I have made this point, in here, several times. No one replied. I took the silence (you personally let it stand for considerable time). I therefore edited it out, as inappropriate, and no one objected, until suddenly Amoruso, not party to discussions here, came in, without reading the talk, and repeatedly restored it, without countering the objection to its place here by 'rational' arguments. That is no collegial, it is not collaborative. He also edited the page three times. I hope therefore that at least you will provide me with a reasoned argument as to why details about another, independent town, located in another zone, should be in the lead paragraph of a another city. Reverting without explanations is not courteous, nor proper.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Regards

:I sincerely doubt that you would find a source saying that Kiryat Arba ''is not'' a suburb, since it actually shares a border with Hebron. Whether it should or shouldn't be included in the lead is a different matter, though I tend to see it as relevant due to their joint mention in so many articles covering the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], as well, of course, as the afforementioned proximity. I also changed "Judean region" back to "Judea region", since it is more a [[proper noun]] than an [[adjective]]. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:I've added back the original mention of Kiryat Arba in the lead, before the disruptions of some new users, or a particular one. As the source (funnily enough) says: '''"Today, Kiryat Arba is the name of a suburb of Hebron, five minutes from the Cave of Machpelah and the heart of the city'''". [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]''', you write:-</BR>
:::'I sincerely doubt that you would find a source saying that Kiryat Arba ''is not'' a suburb, since it actually shares a border with Hebron.'

::Perhaps you are right, but, as a very experienced editor and, might I add, student of philosophy, you'll perhaps agree with me that '''in principle the burden of proving an unsourced assertion lies not on those who challenge it, but those who assert it in the first place.'''</BR>
::It is further, incorrect to say that it 'shares a border', in the sense that this tramples on nuances. A considerable amount of the territory between the actual settlement of Kiryat Arba and the designated confines within which Hebron lies, was, and in part still is, technically Palestinian farming land, much of it expropriated ostensibly for security reasons by the IDF or by main force by the settlers, in order to establish an exclusive 'bridge' from Kiryat Arba to the ghost-town that is now H2, apparently to sercure a geophysical link establishing 'facts on the ground' for the Israeli government to take into account when the final determination of the status of the two areas is decided. Some of that land, according to my documentation, has been recognized by Israeli courts as properly Palestinian farming land, to be duly returned to its rightful owners. I'm glad you raised the point however because it does show how delicate questions of phrasing to guarantee the neutrality of this article are, and we owe it to the Encyclopedia to get it right.</BR>

::I don't have any particular trouble with your phrasing on 'Judea', though, as should be clear, I would prefer a different modulation on the terminology. I accept your proposal provisionally as a reasonable one, as the whole text stands.Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC) </BR>

[[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]].

::The Jewish Virtual Library article on ''Hebron'' is (see demographics) outdated on many things, and full of contradictions. It rightly notes Hebron properly has several hundred settlers, and then calls Kiryat Arba a 'suburb'. That is careless language. In administrative terminology 'suburb' is a subsection of a city, under that city's overall fiscal and political administration, and whose demographics are included in that city's population. The crucial distinction is ignored by the JVL.</BR>

::As Tewfik has frequently reminded us all, articles should not be crammed with extraneous detail. Leads particularly, according to the guidelines, must contain the absolute minimal information, that can then be refined under subsequent expansive headings. I am not in agreement with placing Kiryat Arba in the lead - it certainly must not head the article, as you repeatedly insisted against principle the other day - but putting a brief ref. to it at the end of the lead is not unreasonable. However, the phrasing is totally inadequate and will have to be discussed. You write:- </BR>

:::::Also located near Hebron is the urban Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, which is home to approximately 7,000 Israelis and is sometimes considered to be a suburb of Hebron for its proximity to the Cave of the Patriarchs</BR>

::(a) Kiryat Arba's demographics are not pertinent to the lead in Hebron, since it has its own page, is linked to that page in the article on Hebron we are discussing, and the curious can examine the details there by clicking on the link. In writing clear encyclopedic articles on cities, and I have looked at many (outside of this particular contested area, all over the world) the practice is one of mentioning places nearby, with links to them. One does not go beyond that elementary principle, for, as Tewfik often reminds me, where detailed pages exist on minor issues raised in a separate page, the proper thing in Wiki is to elaborate those issues on the appropriate page dedicated to them.</BR>

::On phrasing, 'urban' is neither here nor there. It attempts an ''Aufhebung'', as the Hegelian term would say ('sublation'), of the 'suburb' previously used in the original passage, and then is followed by 'suburb'. That, in English textbooks on prose style, is considered awkward, if not ugly.</BR>

::'and is '''sometimes''' considered,' would, were it retained, require a citation: considered by whom? You will recall I hope that I took strong objection earlier to the phrase 'which is considered by Israel to be a part of greater Hebron'. That was patently untrue, and yet lay in here unchallenged for several months. And when questioned, no one could provide a justification. It was thus removed</BR>.

::To say that an independent muncipality is considered part of another independent municipality because of its close proximity geographically to a site (i.e., Cave of the Patriarchs) in another town is, excuse my forthrightness, meaningless.</BR>

::Recapitulating therefore, I think it not unreasonable to mention Kiryat Arba at the end of the lead on Hebron for the reasons Tewfik raised, i.e., that the two entities are often mentioned in the news sources for the chronic conflict between them. But, on principle, that mention should state the contiguity of [[Kiryat Arba]], suitably linked, to Hebron, without adding details that can be found on the Kiryat Arba page. I have no interest in that page, and do not see why the passage in the reformulation you suggest here, namely:-</BR>

::::'home to approximately 7,000 Israelis and is sometimes considered to be a suburb of Hebron for its proximity to the Cave of the Patriarchs</BR>

::is now best put on the appropriate page.</BR>

::I therefore propose that we accept your proposal to put Kiryat Arba at the bottom of the lead, with an appropriate link to that page. Simply put, the lead can conclude with all parties satisfied, but above all, with due obeisance to the guidelines governing lead-ins, thus.</BR>

'''The Jewish township of [[Kiryat Arba]] lies adjacent to Hebron'''


::I'm open, as always, to suggestions, and will not proceed to emend the text for the next several hours in order to hear comments from you all.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Disagree. Like I said this was a debate long time ago and was settled. There are many (endless) sources that cite Kiryat Arba as a suburb of Hebron. [http://www.google.co.il/search?q=kiryat+arba+%2B+suburb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a] Therefore there's no reason to deny it. It's not an adjacent town, it really is enclaved inside Hebron and a 5-minute walk from the Cave of the Machpelah. This is very important encyclopedic issue in the context of the article. It is important to note the number of Jews who effectively reside in Hebron and this is by all means part of Hebron but not technically for obvious political reasons. That's all. Therefore it should stay as is. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Two more comments - (1) "waiting several hours...( before starting rv war again and perhaps calling users I don't agree with vandals again and violating other wikipedia rules)" is frowned upon in wikipedia. Please avoid making any reverts until you reach a consensus. (2) Really if you don't understand why Kiryat Arba is not ruled by the mayor of Hebron or so, and therefore you believe this is a proof that it's not a suburb, in contradiction to millions of references saying otherwise, stay out of the article please. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 12:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

some sources saying kiryat arba is suburb:

*Kiryat Arba suburb of Hebron: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_hebron_shooting_1994.php

*Kiryat Arba is a suburb of Hebron, five minutes from the Cave of Machpela:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kiryatarba.html

*Jewish suburb of Hebron:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/935

*Kiryat Arba was established in 1970 as the Jewish suburb of Hebron
http://www.amana.co.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=367&CategoryID=100

*Hebron suburb of Kiryat Arba:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/16479/edition_id/323/format/html/displaystory.html

*a new all-Jewish suburb, Kiryat Arba (the biblical name of Hebron)
muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1beinin.html

*Hebron, together with suburb Kiryat Arba
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/934.htm

*The jewish suburb... http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0377-919X(198321)12%3A3%3C221%3ABBOTWB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

*he first arrived to establish the Kiryat Arba suburb of Hebron in 1968
www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_pragmatism.html

*Way home to the Hebron suburb of Kiryat Arba from prayers at the Cave of the Patriarchs
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=201

*in his own town of Kiryat Arba, the Jewish suburb of Hebron
http://www.forward.com/articles/blood-lines/

*by 1979 Kiryat Arba was an established community of thousands. ... of a new Hebron suburb
http://davidwilder.blogspot.com/1999_04_01_archive.html
[[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]].

Firstly, you ignored most of the gravamen of my comments on what you wrote. It is poorly phrased in English.</BR>

I pray you for the last time not to make distorting comments on what I write. To say I will wait several hours before making a minor edit is a gesture of collegial courtesy to others, it is not, as you again insinuate, an implicit threat to engage in wars. If you continue to waste time not replying to the issues, and using this pattern of distorting my words, I will, with reluctance, ask for arbitration. But I should rather prefer a collegial approach here. Hertz and Tewfik are present, and I would appreciate their comments on our interchanges. I have tried to be reasonable. You insist on personalizing my edits as incompetent or motivated by a desire to conduct edit wars. You prefer this language to addressing the specific points I raised. Instead to raise other issues not material to the issue at hand.</BR>

You keep repeating:-
::::’ Like I said this was a debate long time ago and was settled’.

Please note that writing Wiki pages is not a matter of editing a Biblical text whose institutionalized text admits of no alteration, but only marginal comment. No page is immune from review. Check the guides.</BR>

::::: ‘t's not an adjacent town, it really is enclaved inside Hebron’

I am looking for rational exchange, not an instance on your POV. I showed you the map. You may disagree with the map, but that is your POV

:::: Please avoid making any reverts until you reach a consensus.

No, I haven't been reverting. I will avail myself of the same rights you do, only with more scruple and consideration for others working on this page. It is you who insisted on repasting a text that was under negotiation without prior discussion in here. You did it two days ago, and you have done it again.

As to your sources, they are all unusable, for different reasons (almost all are POV statements reflecting settler language). The issue is: what is the political definition, and what does the map attached to NPA-Israeli negotiations, say about Hebron? And what does ‘suburb’ mean in English administrative usage.

I explicitly asked that newspapers not be cited, because '''whether or not Kiryat Arba is to be defined as a suburb is not a matter for newspapers (partisan at that) to decide, but a matter of the protocols governing the two urban areas.''' The source you cite, in so far as they are accessible are all partisan sources dealing with Israeli/Jewish/Kiryat Arba perspectives</BR>

(1) Palestinefacts.org. is not a reliable neutral source</BR>
(2) Jewish Virtual Library is wrong, for reasons already indicated. It uses the word ‘suburb’ incorrectly in English administrative language, and citing it is no more reliable that citing the same source for the demographics of Hebron.</BR>
(3) Arutz Sheva is not even, in Israeli terms, a neutral source. If you read the article it states quite clearly that the use of ‘suburb of Hebron’ is not the kind of language the media use:</BR>
:::::: ‘In 1972 I had a flourishing lawyer's office in Tel Aviv, and yet I left for a ''Jewish suburb of Hebron'' that was, at the time, in process of being built. '''To where did I go? The media would say: To the ‘West Bank’ or into the ‘Occupied Territories,'''</BR>

I.e. the article underlines that the ''media'' use the West Bank and 'Occupied territories'', whereas the writer prefers to use the settler term, for he is part of that world, ''Kiryat Arba, suburb of Hebron''.</BR>

(4)The fourth refers to a page from the ‘Amana Settler Movement’</BR>
(5)Comes from the San Francisco Jewish Community Publications. Interesting, it is not tender on the settlers and their rampages, but is still partisan, reflecting settler usage, not international maps</BR>

(6)That gave me on Google an Access Restrictes site. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1beinin.html. If access is restricted, it cannot be used.</BR>

(7)Cites an article by '''David Wilder''', in ''Israel Insider''. David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish community at Kiryat Arba, resides inside Hebron, but is hardly an impartial witness.</BR>

(8)Is unusable, since access requires JSTOR, and one cannot source things here expecting people to be either affiliated to a university or ready to pay up for every article consulted.</BR>

(9)David Newman's article ''Gush Emunim Between Fundamentalism and Pragmatism,’' from the ''Jerusalem Quarterly''. I lost count of the errors counted in reading the article. It does use the Gush Emunim phrase ‘suburb of Hebron’ but shows no awareness that this wording does not correspond to the Political Protocols of later years. Obviously, for the article predates those agreements, and therefore is useless as a guide to the status of the city after they were signed.</BR>

(10)This is sourced to the Debka file homepage, an organisation closely connected to Israel’s Shin Bet, full of tendentious gossip dropped tendentiously over these years to influence public opinion.</BR>

(11) ‘Forward’ is an interesting journal. The article, analysing '''roked al ha-dam''', is signed by a pseudonymous person, i.e. a pseudonymous source. It cites two examples of Kiryat Arba folks dancing to celebrate Baruch Goldstein’s massacre in 1994 and Rabin’s assassination the following year, and similar expression and outbursts in Palestinian communities. It does use ‘suburb of Hebron’ but again, the question is misplaced. Like much else on the net from newspapers, it does not respect careful language.</BR>

(12) Again this is from David Wilder’s blog, and has no authority since the assertion is a self-serving one by one of the people within those two communities. It is his POV, it does not reflect what I asked for, diplomatic language.

I have an inkling you desire an edit war. You will not get one. But I will continue to insist that, at the most, under wiki rules, Kiryat Arba as a separate muncipality can be mentioned in the lead as contiguous/adjacent, but information appropriate to Kiryat Arba belongs on the Kiryat Arba page. I learnt to be careful of this from Tewfik, whose position may be poles apart from my own, but who does respect intelligent and precisely worded debate.

This issue should I think have been resolved. The justice of not putting it where it was is recognized by your own repositioning. You retain the language, but that language, apart from being poorly phrased, refers to issues immaterial to Hebron. So in further discussions let us limit ourselves to the precise wording of that reference to Kiryat Arba at the bottom of the lead paragraph. Everything else is a waste of time, and impedes us from getting on to more interesting things, like the history and culture of Hebron.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you for inviting my comments. Let me suggest an approach that could rescue this discussion from being an either/or, and allow us to move on, by obviating the need to invoke the concept of "suburb" with all its associated issues. Perhaps something along these lines might do: ''The bulk of the local Jewish population lives in nearby [[Kiryat Arba]]. Though technically a separate municipality [township?] from Hebron, the two are contiguous and it is five minutes' walk [citation] from the [[Cave of the Patriarchs]], a distance of about half a kilometer.'' (The latter figure, an estimate based on the 5 min. figure, is subject to refinement, of course). And that's it. No other information on K.A. would be given - that would stay on its own page. All the best, [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] 15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] Thank you Hertz. Someway round the impasse must be found, and your suggestion is stimulating. My only trouble with it is that, in terms of the lead para.it is lengthy, and the lead para.is supposed, unless I am mistaken, to deal with essentials. What about:-

:::Adjacent to Hebron is the populous/densely populated Jewish township of [[Kiryat Arba]], a separate municipality, but within five minutes walking distance ([citation] ) from the [[Cave of the Patriarchs]] in Hebron?</BR>

It's for me, a matter of concision and technically proper language, basically. Let me know what you think. Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I will proceed with an edit within the next two hours, along the lines suggested by Hertz as a compromise, with my own précis of his words, if no more comments are forthcoming. I have now had an opportunity to check the one serious, i.e. scholarly source in the many refs. supplied by Amoruso, the article by Joel Beinin of Stanford University. It is quite clear both from the context and from Beinin's broader books, that his use of the phrase is descriptive not juridical. That is the one source that merits attention, and if of course one doubts my own judgement on how p.14 ought to be understood (being extremely critical of the founder of Kiryat Arba ' the militant religio-nationalist rabbi, Moshe Levinger') we could perhaps email him. The distinction between 'descriptive' language and 'juridical' language is crucial. Common newspaper use exemplifies the former, but in legal documents, as those countersigned by both parties in the various protocols and accords, juridical usage is what determines the sense. In a juridical and administrative sense, Hebron and Kiryat Arba have two distinct and separate statuses, which ought not to be confused, as they are, in settler or pro-settler, slipshod journalistic usage.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 18:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]], you asked "Let me know what you think", which I will. You seem to be in a hurry, proceeding with the edit before I or anyone else had time to respond. Not everyone can stay by the computer constantly. In this case things worked out reasonably well. What you wrote is simple, straightforward and innocuous. But I don't see the need for the text to be pruned down to that great an extent, and would like to see my point restored that the bulk of the Jewish population of the Hebron area lives just outside the city itself. That would give the reader, explicitly, one of the more important basic facts. Cheers, [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all Nishidani, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't inviting you to prove a negative, :-) but that I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that sources had already been presented stating that Kiryat Arba was a suburb, and that you were challenging that assertion. Personally, I don't care if we use the specific word ''[[suburb]]'' or not, though I don't see the need to use a limited, legal definition (if one exists in the region, which it doesn't to my knowledge). I agree with Nishidani that Hertz's suggestion is on the lengthy side for a lead, though I agree that a basic mention of Kiryat Arba and its contiguousness is warranted. Specifically, the "five minutes" bit seems subjective and unencyclopaedic even if it can be referenced - perhaps a better formulation could be had. Keep in mind that both those seeking to highlight the settlers' effect positively ''and'' negatively have in the past argued for a mention, so that this is less a POV issue than a content one. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::[[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]]
:::::Then I must proffer an apology for my inadvertent lapse in consideration. I was deceived by the rapidity of your earlier reply into thinking you were on line, and posted my suggestion here on modulating your own fine mediation on appropriate wording and 'waited' some six hours. Actually I wasn't in a haste. My work in here in the last few days, if I may be permitted to drop a personal note, incurred some severe sanctions, much more intimidating than those visited on me for my naive and inadvertent transgressions of the 3 revert rule. They came from 'She Who Must be Obeyed' as Rumpole would say, who complained that our upper garden was being neglected, and so like a wrinkled Jungle Jim I spent most of the afternoon battling scrub. Late at night I sent another message, and two hours later posted your suggestion as I thought it might be edited. It was inconsiderate nonetheless not to await a formal reply, but I did so in the conviction that anything I did write in modification could easily remodulated were you to think it inappropriately worded. I still do have strong formal objections to the phrasing 'the bulk of the Jewish population of '''the Hebron area''' lives just outside the city itself' since it recreates discursive ambiguity on what I consider to be a juridical question that has been provisorily resolved by both parties. Perhaps in the future, as negotiations are renewed, the interim legal situation will change. In that case, the text will certainly have to take into consideration such a new accord which, if it redefines the territorial and administration terms in such a way as to merge the two entities, will require us to register the facts. Best regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 08:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::::No apology needed; I understand the inadvertency. My going off-line was unpredictable. If it's not heresy to say so, there's more to life than Wiki. Actually, you said so yourself in reporting that you are subject to a higher authority, namely SWMBO. (Thanks for the entertaining personal note). As for the business at hand, it amazes me how a seemingly innocent & brief phrase, conveying information of presumed relevence and general interest, can impinge on juridical and philosophical issues, opening the door to ever-widening circles of discussion. I suggest we leave the current edit (which I will dub "Tewfik's Compromise") alone, perhaps to be revisited later. I base this on the profound logical principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (not that there aren't connected issues, just that I don't see this as the appropriate forum for engaging with them). Looking ahead, "a glance at the archeology, and then a short but focused excursus from Joshua to Josephus at least" sounds like a very positive and worthy goal. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I second your suggestion about "Tewfik's Compromise". Of course it can be revisited later, since the nature of Wikipedia (its strength and its weakness simultaneously) is that the text is and always will be, to use Derrida's term, 'under erasure', in the sense that it cannot aspire to dreams of immutability. I just hope that this instability does not resolve itself into Orwell's memory holes in '''1984''', in the sense that some basic issues, rationally resolved by compromise on key points in apparent conflict, should leave a shared recognition that intelligent results, hard won by all parties in negotiation, should not be subject to irruptive reversions that throw the whole process back to stage 1. This shouldn't occur if we agree to keep things firm, rational and even-tempered (which does not of course disallow vigour of dispute). I think the two examples in para.1, on Judea, and on Kiryat Arba, as we have negotiated them within the terms of the technical literature and rules, show the way to a sensible approach to the way the article might be written.

:::::I too am astonished, and I must say pleasantly so, because it affords an excellent form of mental exercise for an old-timer like myself, with Alzheimer whispering like a wizened Siren in one of the wings of premonitory thought, to keep on one's mental toes as a prophylaxis. It allows us laymen, who drift unwittingly into it, to gain an insight into what it must be to be a negotiator at a difficult diplomatic session. Mind you, I was trained primarily in classical languages, where weighing the elusive nuances of Greek particles for their general impact on syntax was crucial to understanding an ancient text. Our modernity, as readers, owes everything to this tradition, as it was enriched by the equally scrupulous culture of close parsing that came out of Jewish rabbinical tradition. So oddly enough, despite the apparent exasperations of teasing out the latent valencies of terminological minutiae, I feel the exercise has been rewarding, and I would like to thank you both for providing me with a hard challenge that has evoked the world of my first tertiary engagement with books. I must shortly devote some time to professional work neglected, as well as promises to other pages, and a brief vacation, (again I apologize for a private note) but will come back with notes and material for this page afterwards. Good Lord, I'm beginning to sound like Nestor in Book 3 of the Iliad, was it- the passage of him being likened to a cicada thrumming on a bough? I undertake hereon in a solemn pledge to cleave succinctly to technical issues, and keep this page clear of rambling verbiage. Cheers [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]
::::Your edit seems to provide a finer modulation of what both Hertz and I discussed. Perhaps we should ask Hertz if he would like to review it, to be on the safe side?

::::Of course I didn't take you as asking me to prove a negative. The idea simply reminded me of passages on propositional logic in Plato and Aristotle. On 'suburb' I think I have been pretty exhaustive above. These pages are a fascinating study in the minefields of language, and the issues raised are well worth doctoral level analysis. Technically every term is problematical, but to niggle endlessly on them would make the actual work of writing informed articles far more extenuating than it is. I have insisted on a juridical approach because it clears up ambiguities that only seminate the text with questioning-begging and often tendentious proposals and counter-proposals. The link you provide to Israeli settlement underlines how delicate this all is: by the way is ''yishuvim'' '''more neutral''' than ''hitnakhluyot''? I cannot judge, because I have only a minimal knowledge of classical Hebrew, barely sufficient to parse Genesis, and I have no intention of straying outside this page until it achieves some consensual level of quality. But, in that ''yishuvim'' refers '''also''' to settlements inside Israel, it cannot be ''more neutral'', for the application of such a term to territory in conquered land blurs the distinction between settlements inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories, insinuating a ''de facto'' parity, and thus implying that the ''hitnakhluyot '' thus redefined, are inside Israel? You needn't reply of course, because it is not material to this page).

::::I note you've made other adjustments further down the page, apropos Ben Gurion, and the citation I made from Churchill. I have several others from him made at the same period, but will not raise the issue until we, or at least I, work my way down to the relevant section. This article has been graded as of High Importance, but, after several years of intense work, still languishes at B-Grade level. That is a shame, and for my part I would like to work methodically through the text with you both, and anyone else, to try and get it to a level of quality its declared importance deserves. Getting that first para.right has occupied a lot of time, and presently I will be vacationing abroad, but I do hope we can agree, with a few more edits or discussions on para.1 if others consider them necessary, so that we can then move on, and tackle the history of the place. It is mentioned over 70 times in the Bible, and I personally would like this section, the next one, fleshed out, perhaps with a glance at the archeology, and then a short but focused excursus from Joshua to Josephus at least. Cheers [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I have restored, without wanting to be dragged into a bunfight, the old figure for settlers inside Hebron, cancelling the alteration in para.1 by a new and apparently inmprovised editor who hasn't troubled to provide a source, or argue the figure. I myself think that a readibly ascertainable and truthful figure should replace the rubbery 700-800 figure now back in that para. The authorities and settlers know exactly what the figure is, (it may well be lower than the rough guesstimate we have) and it should be registered. But the intervention of last night looks like it is calculated to stir another futile edit war, and is needlessly provocative. I hope the other gentlemen in here agree on maintaining this until we can acertain exactly the right figure.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

==Land of the Settlers==
The article ''[[Land of the Settlers]]'' may or may not be encyclopedic. However if it is, then it is surely legitimate to link to it from other related articles. If it is not, then people should raise a deletion discussion. [[User:PatGallacher|PatGallacher]] 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. There are literally hundreds of entries related to the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]] and which are marginally related to Hebron, and which do not belong here. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Tewfik|Talk]]</sup></font> 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== Disputed terms on West Bank/Occupied Territories/Judea ==

:::The term 'disputed territories' reflects a minority opinion, with no sanction in international law, and should not be used on these pages. There may be good reasons, I would add, for avoiding a mechanical, and tendentious repetition of the correct phrasing ''occupied territories'' all over Wikipedia, since the question is one of economy of language. However, as often remarked by outside observers, a large number of these pages on the Israel-Arab/Palestinian dispute are vitiated by slipshod linguistic confusions that reflect the respective interests of the immediate parties to the dispute. In such cases, the standard terminology accepted in UN and International High Court judgements should be employed, since it has the force of a legal determination, and is neutral.

:::Since there is some confusion here. I'll repost what I have noted elsewhere. Namely that, juridically, i.e., in International Law, and under existing UN resolutions, including those of the Security Council, the area under discussion is 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. That within Israel this legal determination is not accepted is one thing, and it may be remarked on on the appropriate page. But an opinion vigorously maintained by Israel alone, the interested party, in 'disputing' Palestinian sovereignty reflects only the position of the Occupying Power, and current infra-Israeli usage, and has no currency in the relevant international laws bearing on the issue. It is a minority opinion, of one, against the almost universal consensus of non-partisan jurists, and must therefore be accepted as such by Wikipedia.

:::Briefly the phrase Occupied Palestinian Territory occurs, to cite but one instance of many,in the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE's decision of 9 July 2004, No. 131 'LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE '''OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY'''.I particularly advise that that document be read, where one can find the precise technical reasons why the court handed down its decision, and why it determined that Israel is in breach of its obligations. One should take note of the wording of the 14 to 1 majority decision which reads:-

::::By fourteen votes to one,
:::'Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the '''Occupied Palestinian Territory''', including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion.'

:::Thus, regardless of insistent challenges by Israel to these determinations of international law, it is wrong to dismiss the use of the words 'Palestinian' 'Occupied Territory' or 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' as violations of NPOV, and 'deeply tendentious, controversial, and, to many, highly offensive' and 'Arab propaganda' (Hertz) since they are standard expressions accepted as terminologically valid, consisting a 'neutral' opinion which is consonant with the juridical status of that territory as defined in legal decisions rendered down by the highest tribunal of international law and in the relevant UN documents.Regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I appreciate you laying it out, though I question what effect it will have. I just wanted to add that if the Israeli position that Palestine is a "disputed territory" must be accommodated every time the territory is mentioned, then logically the position of Syria and Iran that Israel is "the Zionist entity" must be accommodated every time Israel is mentioned. [[User:Eleland|Eleland]] 11:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::[[User:Eleland|Eleland]] God forbid. I couldn't agree more. The phrase 'disputed territory' should only be mentioned as a minority view, that of Israel, in the 'Palestinian territories' page, which, by the way is a disgrace, and will have to be written (not by me) from top to toe to accord with international usage. All this useless discussion of loaded local terms reflects nothing more than a failure to recognize that Wikipedia entries must reflect NPOV language, and that language is established not here, in discussion pages, or by wars of attrition, but by international legal usage. I do not doubt the bona fides of those who keep raising these issues: the problem is that many are so inured to Israeli and Palestinian regional arguments and partisan newspaper articles that they fail to realize the rest of the world, and especially law courts, simply do not accept these kinds of designations as anything other than loaded provincial jargon. The most sensible thing to do would be to open a dictionary page for the area, specifying for users unfamiliar with the proper international terms what terms are normal and universally appropriate (West Bank, Palestine, Occupied Territory, Palestinian Occupied Territory) and what terms represent minority viewpoints, not validated by international usage: Judea, Samaria, disputed territories etc. If this repeated obfuscatory gamesmanship does persist, I think the issue should be taken formally to arbitration. It is wasting time and impeding the writing of serious articles, and can be resolved quickly [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

== [[Beit HaShalom]] ==
Hebron has a history of some 5000 years. I know that recent events are important, but I have long considered that the large amount of space devoted to the post 1967 events constitutes an excessive amount of information, poorly organized and noisy. It has also been an Arab, a pagan, and a Christian city, and the way it has been allowed to develop, with an exclusive focus on a highly contentious settler community in much of the second half requires collaborative work, by editors who show some even handedness. The latest addition is merely publicity, and indeed one of the links used in it did not lead to information on 'Beit Shalom'. There should instead be a couple of paragraphs of the history, 1968 (the Lustik quote can be cut down), 1979, till now, tracing the growth of the several settlements within Hebron, and the tensions between the two societies. The Bible, which deals with Hebron's history over a thousand years, and mentions Hebron over 70 times, is only alluded to, while the settler movement of recent times is given more weight than that foundational text (undue weight therefore). I haven't the time now to join in the collaborative writing of this later section yet, but, swelling it further just means the eventual précis will involve greater cutting, if the person posting on Beit Shalom persists (I wouldn't have objected if something brief like 'Beit Shalom, was established in 2007', had been written) [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

:I understand you reasoning above and agree. I had first placed [[Beit HaShalom]] only in the "See also" section as it is, compared to a 5000 year history, a more current event. This was deleted though. I only included the few sentences in the Post 1967 section, so as to contextualize Beit HaShalom's place in the history of Hebron. I will do as you have suggested above and add only the following wording,

::"Beit HaShalom, was established in 2007." Thank you and take care. [[User:Culturalrevival|Culturalrevival]] 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

==Proposal==
I suggest that the intra-Wiki link used to substantiate the 700-800 figure for the Jewish community in Hebron, i.e.the page for the 'Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron', be revised. (1) If David Wilder, major and spokesman for that small community, cannot tell within a 12% margin of error how many people his community has, then he is not as reliable source. (2) The proper source for Hebron's Jewish community is the Israeli Bureau of Statistics (from memory), which, by the way, calculates the Hebronite Jewish population with that of Kiryat Arba (3) The German sister site gives a breakdown of the Hebron Jewish population based on the 2004 census, and it is notably lower than the 700-800 figure.

Demographics is a precise science, and the Israeli census figures are not conjecture. We must use them, not 'unreliable sources' ('unreliable' for the simple reason that the local Hebronite Jewish population is unsure itself how many people constitute it).

A second point is, how are the students to be counted? (I have no idea myself, but it depends on whether they come from Kiryat Arba daily, or live within Hebron. I'd be interested if someone could clear this up).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::For convenience

::Beit Hadassah = 10 Families </BR>
::Beit Romano School with 250 students </BR>
::Tel Rumeida 15 Families </BR>
::Beit Hasson 6 Families </BR>
::Beit Castel 1 Family</BR>
::Beit Schneerson 6 Families, Kindergarten with 30 Children </BR>
::Beit Fink ? </BR>
::Beit HaShisha 6 Families </BR>

::Roughly 350 - 400 Settlers + 250 Students live in the H2 Zone of Hebron These people are regarded by Israel's Central Bureau for Statistics as belonging to the population of Kirjat Arba.

::That adds up to 600-650 people, of whom, at the max, 400 are settlers. If the students reside in Beit Romano, then the words of the text should specify that the final figure consists of both categories, settlers and students. I know the demographic growth rate is of the order of 1.2% per annum, and this reflects a 2004 census. Surely someone could access the latest data in the Israel Central Bureau for Statistics and get an exact figure? [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 20:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::Tewfik. The Community Hebron page backs that statement with three refs. One to the New York Times which you cannot access without paying for it and 2 to the Jerusalem Post (?) which state 800 (nice round figures. Now the text says 700-800. If two sources give 800, then why say 700-800. The precise statistics on Hebronite Jewish population are available surely from the online Israel Bureau of Statistics, and I fail to understand why an objective governmental source is ignored in favour of a few newspaper articles reflecting the guesstimates of Michael Wilder. Jayrig (sp?) removed neophyte posts of mine several times because they were sourced to other wiki pages, and he informed me as an editor fluent in the rules, and with 30,000 edits to his credit, that one cannot source other wiki pages like this. Why is an exception to this rule made here? Or alternatively, was Jayrig just having me on? I took his word for it and stopped the practice. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== Distance Kiryat Arba Machpelah ==
Is the five minutes walking distance via the whole of 'Prayer Road' or does it refer to cutting off from Prayer Road through Security Road?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== Second holiest?? ==

The lead section claims that the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron is the "second holiest" place" to Jews in Israel, i.e. the holiest place outside Jerusalem. The source for this claim does not itself cite a source. I've never heard of this concept, and I don't think it can be found anywhere in the Talmud. I suggest that it be removed, and replaced by a more generic claim that it's considered a holy site, without the ranking. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ([[User talk:Shalom|Hello]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shalom|Peace]]) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:Shalom, Shalom. This ranking appears to be widespread. I have added some citations. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== Keep up the Good Work ==
I contributed to sections of this article two years ago when there was a fairly heated edit war going on. The informational content and neutrality was certainly compromised severely during this time. I am glad to see that the neutrality has been balanced very nicely and that all relevant information is included and given the space it is due. In short, keep up the good work.--[[User:Wlf211|Wlf211]] ([[User talk:Wlf211|talk]]) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

==Hertz 1888==
an incident that gained international notoriety should be included with names of the guilty included.

On 30 December 2002 a squad of four Israeli "Border Police" (Yanai Lalza, Shahar Botbeka, Denis Alhazov and Basam Wahabe) kidnapped 4 Palestinians (Amran Abu Hamatiya, Hamza Rajabi and Alaa Sankrat), beating Hamatiya and Sankrat and killing Hamatiya by throwing him out of a moving jeep.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017498.html Ha'aretz] ''Two Border policemen convicted of manslaughter in killing of Palestinian teen''</ref><ref>[http://www.btselem.org/english/Beating_and_Abuse/20080429_Abu_Hamdiyeh_verdict.asp B'Tselem] 29 April 2008: Policeman sent to prison for killing Palestinian in incident exposed by B'Tselem</ref>...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:The incident is included. Full detail is disproportionate. The 7 or 8 names are available in the reference(s). Let's spare the reader from unwarranted clutter. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::On names and clutter, note the notable people, 17 Jewish (many of whom may not belong to Hebron, since like [[Dov Lior]] they reside in [[Kiryat Arba]]), and three Palestinians 'for balance'. David Wilder resides in Hebron, certainly, but where is the evidence that the others do? As to sparing the reader, click on [[Shalhevet Pass]]. I can think of a dozen Palestinian children shot dead in similar circumstances there. None are apparently 'notable'. Not a word. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::If you feel that Palestinian victims are underrepresented, the remedy is to create responsible, well-sourced articles on those you feel have been overlooked.[[User:Elan26|Elan26]] ([[User talk:Elan26|talk]]) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

This article is about the city of Hebron, a city with more than 2000 years of history. Is this one incident that significant to the city, so as to warrant this level of detail? we've had this discussion before (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAs-Samu&diff=226571908&oldid=226424841]). Please read [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::You've all missed the technical points.
::Until some years ago, the Hebron article confused Hebron with Kiryat Arba. They are two distinct muncipalities. In Hebron some 500-600 Jewish people reside, 6500 live in Kiryat Arba. No one has shown me or anyone else that the large number of 'notable' Jews associated with Hebron are all residents within the small enclave and not, as often reported, active and resident in Kiryat Arba. Someone had better document that these contemporary people are '''resident''' in Hebron, otherwise, many will have to go to Kiryat Arba.

::(2)[[Shalhevet Pass]] The deplorable violence that occasioned her death is one of a great many. To place that there is to invite pro-Palestinians to create a dozen pages commemorating Palestinian children shot by the IDF or killed by settler violence, a 'retaliatory practice' I deplore. I have seen many obituary pages of this kind struck out as not appropriate to an encyclopedia. As it stands it is a testimony to the Palestinian side of violence. I would never strike it out, but as Canadian Monkey might note, the incident was not ''significant'' to the history of a city with over 4000 odd years of continuous settlement. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
==Jordan==
Jordan did not attack Israel...Israeli forces did however attack Jordanian positions well inside the area set aside for the Arab partition. secondly Hebron was not attacked by Jordan.. so why include a bunch of baloney while removing a documented incident that reached international notoriety?????

On 30 December 2002 a squad of four Israeli Border Police kidnapped four Palestinians, beating two and killing one by throwing him out of a moving jeep to celebrate 2 of the squads end of tour of duty.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017498.html Ha'aretz] ''Two Border policemen convicted of manslaughter in killing of Palestinian teen''</ref><ref>[http://www.btselem.org/english/Beating_and_Abuse/20080429_Abu_Hamdiyeh_verdict.asp B'Tselem] 29 April 2008: Policeman sent to prison for killing Palestinian in incident exposed by B'Tselem</ref> After his conviction for killing Amran Abu Hamatiya by throwing him out of the speeding Jeep, Yanai Lalza fled rather than start his sentence.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998017.html Ha'aretz] Police hunt for Border cop convicted of killing Palestinian</ref>...It is an important part of recent Hebron history....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the Israeli POV in the Jordan sections needs qualifications. Jews were not allowed to enter the West Bank through the Green Line they were however allowed through the Jordan border (the border was sealed by both Israel and Jordan not by Jordan alone)....The Jewish quarter was not destroyed the buildings still stand Jewish life/society/culture did however come to an abrupt end....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::The whole section 'Al-Aqsa Intifada' is legitimately sourced, as far as I can see but poorly named. These incidents, of and soldiers settlers killing and harassing Palestinians, should be headed by a more generic term, covering also Palestinian killings of settlers. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Very sad that you are trying to add this propaganda into this article. Why does every little thing have to be about alleged Israeli crimes against the poor "Palestinians?" Can't we just make this a nice article about Hebron without politicizing it? And it's funny, I don't even see one mention of Netanyahu[http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9701/14/hebron.late/] here. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 09:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Nothing political, unless you think that noting down here facts that are widely deplored in Israel (much of the worst behaviour comes from American Zionists and their descendents) and documented by many Israeli academics [http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfiTXL5IIWMA97AbDQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByazUxbmZ2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12upj8vhs/EXP=1220521491/**http%3A//themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/david-shulmans-dark-hope.html see this], most recently by David Shulman in a powerful book (seconded by [[Avishai Margalit]] in the [[New York Review of Books]], should be kept off the record?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to add reality Einsteindonut....This is a predominantly Palestinian city but you wouldn't know that from the amount of "Jewish history" that has been included......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

as to no naming non-major personalities.....[[Cave of the Patriarchs massacre]]

In Amman, Jordan, 77-year-old British tourist Howard Long was stabbed by Arab protesters. The attacker, Khalid Husni Al-Korashi, was subsequently arrested and the Jordanian Interior Ministry called for its citizens to show calm and restraint in their response[10].

Did he die no, lightly wounded...does that mean that Israeli POV is the only POV permissible? No it does not....It does mean that names etc is permissible even for a minor wounding...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming up with yet another case which clearly illustrates my point: The stabbing attack of Mr. Long may be notable enough for inclusion in an article about a particualr incident (which is itself notable - the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre), as it was reported that the stabbing attack was a response to the massacre. However, if we go and look at the [[Amman]] article, which is the equivalent of the Hebron article, Long is nowehere to be seen, and rightly so - the stabbing attack of a British tourist is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about Amman. Similarly, the killing of a Pelstinian by IDF soldiers is not notable enough for an article about Hebron, but may be significant enough for an article about the particular incident (you claim it gained "worldwide notoriety" - so perhaps it is worth of its own article?), or in an article about IDF-Palestinian violence. This has nothing to do with Israeli POV vs. Palestinian POV, but with notability of minor events in the context of cities with histories spanning thousands of years. Read [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Wrong analogy. Amman is not a divided city, as is Hebron, which is structured in a way that crisis, killing, segregation, and violence is endemic. What is notable about Hebron is the very high incidence of violence, and harassment, virtually, if you are to believe the many on-site observers' bulletins, on a daily basis. Indeed, the area is one of the most studied in the West bank for this friction between settler communities and indigenous Palestinians. The more severe incidents that constitute turning-points, require note. Probably, these major incidents should be listed briefly (not individuals). This was not a characteristic of its history until after 1979, but is what marks it out in the last few decades. Any sensible editor can see this, and I suggest, since it requires research, and considerable reorganization, that well-established editors from both sides agree to the required rewrite, preferably as schematically as possible. Two basic criteria suggest themselves to simplify the scattered reportage: (a) incidents leading to administrative-military policy changes (b)more than one individual killed or injured. I would also suggest that both parties to such a rewrite proposal agree to call in a supervising admin willing to oversee the changes, given the high risk of conflict[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I disagree. The analogy is quite good (though certainly not perfect - analogies never are). The relevant dimensions are the scope of the article - in both cases, articles about major cities with large populations, rich culture and long histories - and the significance of single, recent events to the overall picture. Amman is not Hebron, but it, too had its share of ethnic violence. Those major events (The Black spetember of 1970), in which some 8,000 people were killed, are summarized in 3 brief sentences in that article, without naming even a single individual incident. By contrast, this article already devotes an entire section to "Settler-Palestinian Violence", and more than half of the "Post-Oslo Accord" section is also devoted to the same.
::::I do agree with your overall position: The "Settler-Palestinian Violence" and the "Post-Oslo Accord" section should probably be merged into one section describing the ethnic violence, and ''notable'' events within that context (e.g: the Goldstein massacre, the murder of 12 Yeshiva students) should be listed briefly . [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So you gona remove the baby in the pram incident and the article with it?????????????????????? or is your POV showing?????????????????????????????????.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the 100's of Palestinians CM.....the indiscriminate rocket attacks on a BMW driver etc etc....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Ashley. This is a negotiation, not a duel. Challenging the motives by rhetorical questions and dramatic series of expostulating ??'s is a waste of time. Every one knows where you, I or someone like Canadian monkey or anyone else is coming from, so theatrics are simply boring, as well as provocative. Just stick to the point, press your position with quality sources and argument. All the rest is 'wanking' (I've nothing against actually feeding the chooks, of course, but as a metaphorical practice it is usually deplorably distractive).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]], Black September was the suppression of an attempted coup d'état of brief duration. The Palestinian militants were expelled from Jordan, and peace returned. Hebron has seethed with violence for more than two decades, as 30,000 people have been pushed out of their properties by settler and IDF violence, and many farming properties have been seized, and their owners shot, as in turn, Palestinians have at times fought very bitterly against the settlers, and some of them have conspired to kill innocents. Therefore the analogy stands, since, if a few days in one city's history merits three lines, thirty years of barely contained hostilities in another city merits a significant section. The analogy therefore was misleading, and cannot stand for the purpose you cite it for.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, I agree with your overall proposal, though not with the specifics of the reasoning you provide. Black September lasted more than "a few days" - armed confrontations were taking place well into 1971 - but that's a side issue. You are focused on the ''duration'' of the events - a few months for Black September versus 2 decades of sporadic, small scale violence in Hebron. I am focused on the results and ''impact'' of the events - the elimination of a state-within-a state that the PLO had in Jordan, 8000 dead and a subsequent exodus of the PLO from Jordan and into Lebanon, arguably the root cause of the Lebanese civil war, and the 1982 Israeli invasion, vs. several dozen people killed (on both sides) in Hebron, with limited overall effect on strained relations between the religious communites in Hebron which date back to at least the 1920s. I am not suggesting we increase the coverage of the Black September events in the Amman article, nor am I advocating eliminating the mention of settler-Palestinian-IDF violence in this article. I agree that this is a defining characteristic of the city today, and warrants a section - but I don't think detailed mention of every incident, be it the murder of a baby in her stroller or the killing of Palestinian thrown from a moving vehicle, is appropriate. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Black September as a movement of militant refugees within a foreign state fought a bloody campaign and was defeated and expelled by the legitimate government. As to the root cause, arguably the 1948 exodus was the root cause, which in turn . . .The situation on the West Bank post 1967 is different, with massive settlement taking place on what is Palestinian land, under military rule (a Palestinian would not be straining credibility were he or she to remark that this settlement on lands that mainly have local title, subject to expropriation, to create numerous enclaves that are then given preponderant access to best land, and water resources and financing, conducted under the auspices and power of a foreign government, is more of a threat to the eternal (since the 1920s) promise of their statehood than anything Black September posed to Jordan. In both instances, foreign 'immigrants/refugees' are challenging traditional local rights, with the difference that BS was a fringe military movement within a foreign country, while settlers are a large scale movement into an undeclared but projected state backed by a foreign power. As to the small numbers actually killed, this is, in comparative terms, true of both sides if you view the big picture, but since the 1980s, the place is ruled by the IDF '''as though''' settlers (most of the founding figures in Hebron and Kiryat Arba have or had criminal records) were the rightful owners of the many areas they excpropriate against High Court rulings in favour of Palestinians, and Palestinians Hebronites were all militants like cadres of Black September, intrusive elements with high terroristic potential who must be put down, put in their place, or displaced, as the colonization of the Hebron Hills proceeds apace. Not a day passes without sheep being stolen or maimed, people beaten up, wells poisoned, land-use challenged, cave-dwellers denied even that old sanctuary of abode, and children stopped from going to school. The friction is rarely lethal, but the intensity of daily harassment is a matter of public record, and the reluctance of politicians and the IDF to control these outbreaks is widely viewed in Israel as scandalous. Our differences are minor. We agree that an enumeration of each incident would imperil the balance of an article. We agree a separate section should bracket the 1980-2007 chronic conflict of settlers and locals by highlighting key incidents. It is very difficult to write articles where there is an obvious imbalance, an abusive 'preponderance of power' to one side, I know. But Hebron's recent history illustrates the problem. That is why is requires particular delicacy, but rigorous honesty, if these facts are to be represented properly. (None of this relates to the legitimacy of the Jewish presence, with its millenial traditions, in that city). [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The above remarks were not a duel, they were flippant. I feel that the split should be from The British mandate period as a lot of the modern tensions stem from that period.....The past is needed to interpret the present......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== No Hebrew Name in the Box? ==

why is that? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Einsteindonut|contribs]]) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Because 0.7% of the Hebron population get 0.7% (proportionality) of the article devoted to them....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


It was just missing in the template. I've added it as an optional parameter. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

==Cave of the Patriarchs massacre==
48 People died in Hebron that day.....Incorrect.....

The second incident occurred on the temple mount not in Hebron...so they couldn't have been fleeing from BG.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

==Hillel Weiss==
*In August of 2007 [[Hillel Weiss]], father of Tehila Yahalom, verbally abused Hebron Brigade commander Col. [[Yehuda Fuchs]], while IDF troops evacuated 2 settler families from the Hebron wholesale market.<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218446191738&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Jpost] 13 August 2008 ''Hillel Weiss indicted for incitement''</ref><ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3435555,00.html Ynet News] 08.09.07 ''Cursing professor to be probed'' by Efrat Weiss</ref> [[Bar-Ilan University]], where Weiss is a professor, has publicly distanced itself from his remarks and criticized Weiss.<ref>[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/151392 Arutz Sheva] 13 August 2008 ''Prof. Hillel Weiss Indicted for Incitement''</ref>

Shows the breakdown in settler IDF relationship and had wider ramifications within Israeli society....this is why it received as much newspaper columns as it did....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Hertz was within his rights to remove that passage. What we need are secondary sources synthesizing and interpreting various aspects of the situation at Hebron, not an event by event chronology. There's no simple 'breakdown in settler-IDF' relationship'''s'''. Generally the IDF works very closely with settlers, even after these incidents where one or two from both sides have faced off. That is relatively rare, and the norm is for the IDF to either back settlers, or disappear when they are active. Furthermore this is not a page on IDF-settler relationships. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources only come out way after events, the Hillel Weiss incident (in Hebron) is a forerunner of increasing IDF/settler tensions and Hebron is a special case. The settler eviction of 2007 doesn't get a mention in the body of the text where it should have been mentioned (the first eviction not the second gets mentioned). The interaction of Dror Weinberg with the settlers isn't even explored. The religious element crying out of "universal" Military service is creating a rip in the fabric of the IDF/settler relationship yet those secondary sources are only available from Hebrew sources. Are the Hebrew speakers likely to write about splits in the Israeli society????????? Until those sources are translated I'll just carry on writing and recording....Hillel Weiss has more relevance to Hebron than a minor wounding in Amman....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 12:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I assure you, and I think it evident from my posts, that I am quite familiar, perhaps even intimately familiar with daily conflict between settlers and Palestinians in that area, since I get daily reports on everything that happens there from a variety of sources. This is a generic article that simply cannot be stuffed with single incidents because their number is huge. To cram even major incidents from the last three decades would lead to overflow (my own private files run into hundreds of pages), and unbalance what must be an article on the overall history of the city. The only solution for you would be to create an article on settler-indigenous conflict in the Hebron Hills, linking it to the relevant brief section here, and develop it. One has to think ''sub specie temporis historici'', as Spinoza might advise, in drafting articles of this kind. In the meantime, I suggest you read David Shulman's ''Dark Hope'' on this specific issue, if you haven't yet, and wish to work on the problem. regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree. Adding 'news' bordering on NN about seperate incidents to locality articles makes the article shallow, lengthens the article so that the reader gets bored and simply, WP is not a repository of news reports that might be found on the internet 1st or 2nd sources notwithstanding. --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk:Shuki|talk]]) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Agreeing with Nishidani, and with Shuki, who put it most succinctly. This is an article about a city, not about ''everything'' that happens in it. That is the distinction to keep in mind, otherwise we end up with a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. As a reader I would much rather see a balanced '''overview''' or two, from reliable sources, than to have to plow through an indiscriminate rehashing of ephemeral details. I believe that as editors we need to emphasize the macroscopic over the microscopic, the forest over the trees, lest the article become cluttered, boring and unreadable. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Links on 'notable people' to be removed to Kiryat Arba page? ==

[[David Wilder]] is a well-known settler within Hebron, and is notable at present.

[[Baruch Marzel]] [http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfTS8r5IOtkAu1MbDQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNzk4cXAwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1486tlv2m/EXP=1220559954/**http%3A//www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Articles/1996/THE%2520WITHDRAWAL%2520WILL%2520PASS%2520QUIETLY%2520-%252015-Nov-96 lives or lived at Tel Rumeida in Hebron, and is notable]

'''The rest are or were, apparently, residents of Kiryat Arba'''.

Rabbi [[Meir Kahane]] 'Kahane settled in the far-right outpost of Kiryat Arba', according to Samuel G. Freedman,''Jew Vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry,'' 2001 p.170, and therefore should not figure as a personage of Hebron.

[[Noam Federman]] ‘What is Federman doing these days? Prevented from practicing law, and after long periods of being house- or jail-bound, he and his family decided to move to a different location: a hilltop outside Kiryat Arba.' (not in Hebron)[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/119253 here]

Baruch Goldstein was a resident of Kiryat Arba. See [[Dilip Hiro]],''The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide,'' 2003 p.170 = 'a Kiryat Arba resident, Baruch Goldstein'

[[Itamar Ben-Gvir]] is in Kiryat Arba [http://meionline.com/backcover/362.shtml May 26th, 2005 -- From the balcony of his home in Hebron’s Kiryat Arba settlement, Itamar Ben Gvir scans the terrain.’ ]

Rabbi [[Moshe Levinger]] 'Kiryat Arba-based Moshe Levinger,' according to [[Dilip Hiro]],''The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide,'' 2003 p, 170

Rabbi [[Dov Lior]], rabbi 'resident in Kiryat Arba' according to Nigel Craig Parsons,''The Politics of the Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to Al-Aqsa,'' 2005 p.379 n.45

Neither [[Shalhevet Pass]] nor [[Avraham Shmulevich]] fit the requirements for notability in an historical city, and the links can and should be removed.

'''Comment'''. This distinction is non-ideological. A Palestinian perspective might well see the merit of having the Jewish presence in Hebron characterised by so many people with criminal records and a terrorist background. A certain Jewish perspective might well see the advantage of detaching the names of some criminals or extremists from their brief entanglement in sanguinary incidents in what is a holy city for Judaism. Alternatively, a different Palestinian perspective might prefer that the names of these outsiders not be associated with their city, or a certain Jewish grouping might prefer that people regarded as extremists in their midst be recognized for their key role in reclaiming a presence in Hebron.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 21:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
: I am ok with moving these to the Kiryat Arba page. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::I am not editing Wiki but restricting my occasional role to trying to help relative newcomers on the pro-Palestinian side to understand the proper editorial procedures, and to remarking in talk pages from time to time on things that might be done. So I won't shift these personally, and secondly think the proposal should stay up, as a proposal, for a few weeks, until others can vet it and offer their opinions, objections. One technical objection would be that these people are included under a heading '(notable) people ''related to'' Hebron', and therefore do not have to actually live there. The objections to this are obvious. We need many more names from the rabbinical world which kept the traditions of Jewish life there alive, and of notable Palestinians, people who made aliyah and settled in the city, or were born there. To burden the page with so many contemporary, historically minor, figures is to tilt the notability section to very recent external figures who are minor blips in terms of the ''longue durée'', apart from POV considerations. Thanks [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for splitting Hebron/Kiryat Arba and linking both through see also at the "heading", the link between the two is two is to strong for a minor wiki link and should be emphasized. Mind I'm also of the opinion the Historical Hebron should be split from contemporary Hebron (at the BMoP point).....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::If you go back a year or two you will see that I proposed the delinking because (a) the population figures for the Jewish Hebron population were several thousand, and confused two distinct muncipalities, that the post 1994/1996 maps clearly distinguish. Even as it stands the exact number of Jewish residents within Hebron is vague and press figures vary from 450 to 800. No one appears to know, or wish to establish the precise figure. (b) The 'link' between the two, indeed the desire to erase the distinction is characteristic of the Kiryat Arba community, which harasses the al-Ja'abari family on a daily basis in order to establish legal title over Palestinian land into Hebron, and meld the two communities. The link in the bottom of the lead is the result of a reasonable compromise between myself and [[User:Tewfik|Tewfik]] after long discussion. This compromise was achieved after a good deal of quite useless but intense obstructionism, and I think it is a good one, for which Tewfik is to be commended.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::There's been little reply to this thread, but myself, CM and Ashley agree that, on the evidence, [[Meir Kahane]], [[Noam Federman]], [[Baruch Goldstein]], [[Itamar Ben-Gvir]], [[Moshe Levinger]],[[Dov Lior]], [[Shalhevet Pass]], [[Avraham Shmulevich]] can be properly removed from the notable people relating to Hebron list, since they live and work from Kiryat Arba. Silence however does not necessarily mean assent [[argumentum ex silentio]], and one would appreciate more input on this.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]), before deletions are made. 09:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== Npov issue in the "Settler-Palestinian violence" section ==

I was just reading this article. I feel it is very sad that there is not even one mention of a terrorist attack against Jews in this section. Sad and pathetic actually. I hope to add to it, when I can find the time and find all the proper sources. But whoever is behind this section is not being neutral at all. If you're going to talk about all these alleged Israeli crimes, you are remiss in your duties as a Wikipedia editor to not also talk about terrorist attacks and other such crimes in the area committed by Arabs. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Einsteindonut,
:Please, cool down.
:The same message as the one you have just delivered could have been more percutant with more [[wp:CIVIL|wp:civility]]...
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::You're right Ceedjee. Sorry about that. I was just reading through and found this to be extremely concerning. Thank you for changing the header. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut it is apparent that your idea of "neutral" is somewhere to the right of Liebermann....I shall look forward to you finding some RS to back up your POV....PS even the Israeli government use the term Palestinian, it is only extremists that refer to "Arabs" living in the West Bank...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Ashley, please, refrain from [[WP:NPA|Personnal attacks]]. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:True, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Surprised you'd attack like that especially as you were just recently unbanned early for your disregard for the rules. Label me as you wish. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::This tone is not better. Please fit to facts... [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:One small correction, I wasn't talking about Arabs in "the West Bank" but in Judea and Samaria. My idea of neutral is that this controversial section shouldn't even exist until we have an equal amount of material from the Israeli perspective. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::In fact, it doesn't work that way exactly.
::In chronological order :
::1. material has to be sourced from [[wp:rs]] sources
::2. all pov must be given to fit with [[wp:npov]]
::3. each side must be given [[wp:due weight]]
::That means that is something is not npov, we must bring more material to neutralize the problem but we don't remove material when it is (properly) sourced (and of course related to the topic).
::
::So, to answer the forementionned issue, does someone have wp:rs sources with statistics about the attacks Israeli settlers of Hebron would have been targeted after '67. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I second Ceedjee's request. And would add that there is no such thing as an 'Israeli perspective', a 'Jewish perspective', a 'Palestinian perspective', an 'Arab perspective' etc. These terms are misleading shorthand, and one should always remind oneself that we are dealing with a convenient but parlous fiction. If everything is to be interpreted according to some binary 'is this good for this or that ethnic image', these articles will get nowhere. This is not a chatroom or a lowbrow newspaper forum. The relevant facts are adduced for incidents of violence from both sides, preferably from reliable secondary sources that summarize trends. To interpret the registration of, for example, violent acts by certain settlers in Hebron as insinuating something about 'Israeli crimes' is puerile, since it implies collective guilt. Guilt is personal, not collective. Significant numbers of Israelis and or Jews regularly visit Hebron to defend Palestinians. Ps. 'West Bank' is the internationally accepted term. 'Judea' and 'Samaria' are Israeli administrative terms not considered appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia, since if they were introduced, one would then have to introduce comparable terms of topological definition from Arabic usage [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The only way to trend for a locality is through newspaper articles.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't know what you mean by 'to trend for a locality' - and that's not our goal here. The goal is to write a neutral, informative article about the city, and the way to do that is to rely on reliable secondary sources, and avoid undue recentism whish is the by-product of trawling through newspaper articles. You are again encourgaed to read [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::The violence between Israeli settlers and local Palestinians as well as the regular intervention of "peace group" there seems relevant to me. By the way, Ashley doesn't say the contrary of what you say... I think she suggested a way to solve the npov issue mentionned by Einsteindonuts... [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashley. One doesn't exclude newspaper reports per se. But you're wrong. There is a substantial literature by various human rights groups in Israel and abroad on Hebron. This, just to note one sample, from B'tselem, all downloadable documents:
Hebron City Center

*2007 Annual Report: ''Human Rights in the Occupied Territories'
Special Report, December 2007
Download the report: PDF

*''Ghost Town: Israel's Separation Policy and Forced Eviction of Palestinians from the Center of Hebron''
Joint Report with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2007
Download the report: PDF

*''Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians''
Status Report, August 2003
View summary
Download the report: DOC, PDF

*''Soldiers' Abuse of Palestinians in Hebron
Case Study No. 17'', December 2002
View summary
Download the report: DOC, Zipped RTF, PDF


*''Standing Idly By: Non-enforcement of the Law on Settlers:'' Hebron, 26-28 July 2002
Case Study No. 15, August 2002
View summary
Download the report: DOC, PDF

*''Free Rein: Vigilante Settlers and Israel's Non-Enforcement of the Law''
Information Sheet, October 2001
View summary
Download the report: DOC, RTF, PDF

''Impossible Coexistence: Human Rights in Hebron since the Massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs''
Information Sheet, September 1995
Download the report: DOC, Zipped RTF

''Law Enforcement vis-a-vis Israeli Civilians in the Occupied Territories Comprehensive Report, March 1994''
View summary
Download the report: DOC, RTF

*''Lethal Gunfire and Collective Punishment in the Wake of the Massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs''
Case Study No. 4, March 1994
[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the HRW book on Hebron available as per one of my supplied references Nishidani, it has far more detail on the early events in the intifada.... Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District By Human Rights Watch, Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch (Organization), Clarisa Bencomo Published by Human Rights Watch, 2001 ISBN 1564322602 and ISBN 9781564322609 [[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

==Auditors to ICS==
''The Israeli military claims the ICS has "delivered money to Hamas terrorist operatives" and "supported the families of suicide bombers and incarcerated terrorists." But Farah said the association has its financial records and accounts "meticulously" scrutinised by Israeli and Palestinian authorities.'' sorry CM but you must have missed the reference in the source given....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::I did not miss that sentence. It is, you will note, a ''claim'', by Farah, the ICS's lawyer, who is an interested party. This claim was presented as fact. Further, it does not mention an "audit", which is an accounting process with a clear definition, but rather makes mention of some vague "scrutiny" given to its records by unnamed Israeli and Palestinian authorities, and even that claim does not go as far as saying that the Israeli charges were found by these authorities "to be unfounded". I changed the text accordingly. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It is also true that almost all IDF assertions on issues like this are never accompanied by adequate public evidence. As with the Fullbright scholarship cases recently, they declare, act, and withhold from public or civil purview scrutiny of the relevant documentation since it is a matter of 'security-sensitive' material, we are told this is what they assert and nothing more, so that even those first rate palestinian engineers condemned to give up their US/ Utah scholarships don't know the reason why. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::The IDF assertions are presented in the article as allegations. After my edit, the ICS claims are also presented as claims. That is the way we are required to edit, per [[WP:NPOV]]. There's no need to [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] here about IDF actions and your opinions of them. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Fascinating, [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]]! You have evaluated the RS, seen it has what you consider bias, and, in editing the ref, altered the RS report to achieve 'parity'. I.e. you are interfering with the words of the source. The source says the IDF 'claimed', and Farah 'said'. What you are implying is that the word 'said' constitutes a 'claim' and therefore 'claim' must be the default term in all such instances where such content is 'translated' into wiki NPOV language. Quite Orwellian. Well, be consistent and try that curious tack over at [[Muhammad al-Durrah]]. ''Nota bene'.

:::<blockquote>Three days later, the Israeli army chief of operations '''said''' an internal investigation showed that "the shots were apparently fired by Israeli soldiers"; . . . In 2002, an investigative report by the ARD German television edited by Esther Shapiro also '''said''' there was a "high probability" that the Israelis did not do it. . . .France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, '''said''' in 2005 that no one could say for certain who might have fired the shots, although Enderlin stands by his report . . . .Israeli troops returned fire with rubber-coated bullets and live rounds which the army '''said''' its soldiers fired in the direction of the nearby Palestinian police post. . . Jamal '''said''' later, "Muhammad was hit in the knee by a bullet. I tried to defend him with my body, but another hit him in the back. I cried and shouted for help.' . . doctors who examined the boy's body '''said''' that he had been shot from the front in the upper abdomen and the injury to his back that his father had seen was in fact an exit wound. </blockquote>

:::One could go on ad infinitum. You are effectively rewriting the source according to how you think it should have been written were it NPOV. This is a patent abuse. Farah 'said'. He did not 'claim', just as the Israeli sources have IDF people 'saying' (when claim is understood) this and that. Responsible editors use source language, and do not rewrite it according to personal interpretations. Wiki aspires to NPOV, it does not insist that it sources be NPOV, simply that the language they use be paraphrased or cited with precision.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I have not "evaluated" the source, and made no comment about any bias it may have. I merely read it, and noted it did not support the claim attributed to it in the article. Namely - there was no mention of an "audit", let alone an audit that found the IDF claims to be "unfounded". Instead, there was a statement, by the accused party's lawyer, that IDF allegations are false (actually, not even that - there was a claim that the ICS's books were subject to scrutiny, and that they account for "every penny", but no direct refutation of the IDF claims). I edited the article accordingly. I have not "rewritten" anything, and certainly did not "abuse" anything, and you would do well to avoid that kind of language in the future. You concede that when sources quote IDF personnel saying something, we understand that as a "claim", and accordingly, describe such claims as "allegations". The same holds true when the other party says something in its defense - we understand this as a claim, and describe it as such - that is what [[WP:NPOV]] requires. If you'd like to suggest alternative language to the one I used ("''The ICS disputes these charges"'') along the lines of "The ICS's lawyers '''say''' their books are open to scrutiny" - I don't think I'll object, though I believe muy formualtion to be a more succint accurate rendition of what the source says. If you have comments you'd like to make about the Al Durrah incident - make them at the appropriate Talk page. This page is for improving the [[Hebron]] article. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::I stand by my remarks. I would appreciate it if you direct me to the wording in [[WP:NPOV]] policy guidelines that requires that 'when the other party says something in its defense -'''we'''([[majestic plural|pluralis majestatis]], presumably) understand this as a claim, and describe it as such'. For you are clearly saying it is standard [[WP:NPOV]] operating procedure to change descriptive 'said' in sources into 'claim', if 'said' can be interpreted (by an editor) as meaning a 'claim'. Editors with long experience and fundamental disagreements ([[Muhammad al-Durrah]] being instanced) over many things do not quibble over this, as is done here.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Standing by your remarks, when those have been shown to be misplaced is not something to be proud of – it is a display of obstinacy, nothing more. If those remarks you "stand by" include the baseless accusation that I am abusing Wikipedia policy, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Repeated personal attacks along those lines will lead to a complaint about your behavior.

:::Your repeated obsession with "said" vs. "claim" indicates you have not bothered to read my response (where I noted that I do not object to a rewording using "said"), nor even the disputed edit itself – for nowhere in the article's text have I used the word "claim". So, let me dispense at once with your straw-man of asking for the Wikipedia policy requiring the replacement of "said" with "claim", or the SOP of doing so. There is none, I have never claimed there is one, nor have I changed any "said" to "claim". That was not the content of my edit, and not the substance of my claim that the sentence in question was POV. All I did was change an edit which presented a claim as a fact, into a properly attributed statement, and all I wrote in support was that [[WP:NPOV]] requires us to do so. Please reread the edit history and confirm this for yourself.
:::Let me repeat the explanation of my edit for your benefit, once again, with pointers to relevant Wikipedia policy. Prior to my edit, the article presented competing claims in a non-POV way. The IDF position was presented as allegations ("the ICS's alleged promotion of terrorism") while the ICS's position was presented as fact ("when the auditor had checked the accounts [The IDF allegations were] found to be unfounded".), and sourced to an article which did not state this as fact. In fact, the cited article did not state this at all – rather, it quoted the ICS's lawyer as saying words to the effect of "our books are open to scrutiny". Accordingly, I changed this text to present both sides as competing versions (the IDF alleges something, the ICS disputes it), without using the word 'claim' for either side. The relevant Wikipedia policy is [[WP:NPOV]], and more specifically [[WP:ASF| this section]], which states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is not an undisputed fact that an auditor had checked the IDF allegations and found them unfounded – it is just something the ICS lawyer said (in English, and specifically in a legal context, this is called a 'claim"). [[WP:ASF]] further tells us 'It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions" – i.e, we need to attribute this statement to the ICS, or its lawyer, not present it as a fact. I have made no value judgment about the reliability of IPS as a source and did not claim it was biased, as you have misleadingly alleged. I merely made our article conform with our core policy of [[WP:NPOV]], which requires that competing opinions about facts, such as the ICS's lawyer's opinion of the IDF claims, be presented as such, and be properly attributed. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::: I.e., you are interpreting the the RS's use of language, instead of simply following it. I stand by my point, and to do so is not 'a personal attack' (you're welcome to make an ArbCom/ANI denunciation if you like, I will not defend myself. Good luck), and to repeat this in the face of what I read as unsatisfactory explanations is not an 'obsession'. Farah's remark is, you assert, a ''claim'' presented as a 'fact'. I.e. you are dissatisfied with the language of the source, (hence my referring you to the Mohammad al-Durrah text). The ''fact'' registered here is that he ''said'' both Israeli and Palestinian authorities 'meticulously scrutinise' (''audit'': 'official systematic examination of (accounts) so as to ascertain their accuracy'O.E.D) the organisation's money records. If you disbelieve the veracity of this reportage, by all means refer me to a source that challenges the truth of what Farah said (audits were shocking under Arafat, from memory, despite 1996 attempts to get them in order and significant reforms to bring them up to snuff were introduced after his death. This much I recall from Rubin's biography of Arafat). My 'standing by what I wrote' merely indicates I dislike warring which is mostly about strategies of formalist niggling, esp. when it is obvious no dialogue is possible. When one waves wiki policy flags about in my direction, by way of threatening action, I take it as water off a duck's back. So let's leave it at that. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous edit was placed as though the allegation was fact yet you took no action over that? why....Please try not to use the NPOV argument when you have been displaying POV...Your edits are displaying a certain amount of stalking CM...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Two additional, very important policies for you to read: [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CM I have always assumed GF...only your edits do make your stalking apparent...that's not a personal attack that is observation....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Accusations of stalking are a serious matter. Please cease these, and abide by [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Hi,
::For my external point of view, as observer, I think CM harash a little bit AK, here.
::Please, both, try to cool down.
::You should know that on wp:en, this will not lead you to any solution that will satisfy you.
::Try to focus on the ''content issues'' in these discussion and avoid any personal attack.
::What are the content issues here exactly and precisely ?
::The best way would be to :
::* excerpt the sentence
::* propose on the talk page the modifications
::* check the wp:rs of the sources
::* check all the pov are there with their due weight
::* theck the wording respect wp:npov
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Articles to bring about true NPOV - (with regard to Arab terrorism against Israelis) ==

[http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/59329383.html?dids=59329383:59329383&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+01%2C+1994&author=DAVID+ELIEZRIE&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Jews+Have+Long+Suffered+in+Hebron+Terrorism%3A+The+crime+of+one+gunman+can%27t+be+equated+with+centuries+of+Arab+violence.&pqatl=google Jews Have Long Suffered in Hebron Terrorism: The crime of one gunman can't be equated with centuries of Arab violence]

[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/18/101245.shtml Suicide Bombings Keep Sharon Home]

[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26716843_ITM Secretary-General condemns 'despicable' Hebron terrorist attack.]

[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4D71131F935A25752C0A9659C8B63 Israel Closes Two Universities in Hebron as Terrorist Havens]

[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-69684256.html 15,000 and counting ... Byline: MICHAEL FREUND Edition; Daily Section: Opinion Page: 09]

[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22615574.html Has the jihad returned?]

[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1202064579209&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Hamas: Dimona bombers came from Hebron]

[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F979ED570E94C32&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Israeli shot dead in "terrorist attack" on Jerusalem-Hebron road]

[http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3003 PA celebrates released murderers]

[http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=261 In Drive against Hamas, Mofaz Takes on Assad-Nasrallah Duo]

[http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660158422.html?dids=660158422:660158422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=May+06%2C+1980&author=DIAL+TORGERSON&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Arab+Attack+on+Hebron+Signals+Shift+of+Terrorist+Tactics&pqatl=google Arab Attack on Hebron Signals Shift of Terrorist Tactics]

[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207649965547&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull Why can't Jews buy homes in Hebron?]

[http://www.israelemb.org/articles/2001/March/2001032700.htm March 27, 2001 Terrorist attack in Hebron on Monday - in which a baby was deliberately shot while in the arms of her mother - was an unprecedented act of cruelty] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Einsteindonut|contribs]]) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This is just a small sampling as it seems this article is "mysteriously lacking" any sources about Arab attacks on Israelis. I will be adding to this list over time, as '''it's really not rocket science to assemble a series of articles reflecting your own POV into a Wikipedia article'''. It's a shame there cannot just be an article about an Israeli city without this '''blatant POV pushing'''. Is it just me, or am I the only one who does not see any sources which show the Israeli POV on the violence? '''Not one article about an Arab terrorist attack in Hebron? Nor about the terror networks in Hebron? ''' '''And here Wikipedia claims that NPOV is one of the most (if not THE most) important rule in which to strive?''' Seems like most the editors are not striving to do this with regard to certain sections of this article at all. If you're going to talk about what you consider to be Arab victimhood and Israeli aggression and your issues with regard to "Israeli settlement", etc., then you must also present the converse with regard to the problems of Arab terrorism. Simple as that. To not do that, would suggest that '''one is quite obviously pushing a POV'''. I believe that if people are just going to focus on one side, then NEITHER side should be presented. If we are to show both sides, then it ought to be with the same exact weight. Equal terminology. Tit for tat.

Let us see how many editors who seem intent on pushing a certain POV will be kind enough to incorporate language and citations from the aforementioned links in a FAIR and BALANCED way..... My guess is that if any of them were truly interested in NEUTRALITY that this would have been done in the first place.

The bottom line is that in far too many Wikipedia articles in general there is this POV pushing and this complete disregard for the NPOV for which I thought Wikipedia claims to strive. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:Einsteindonut, it has been asked you several times already, to keep cool.
:And above all, respect [[WP:AGF]] and be civil !!! [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 08:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think a good half of the links you gave here above could be added in the article.
:On the content, I would ask you to defitely stop your provocation with such wordings as : "Hebron is an Israeli city"
:If an article is not neutral, the only good way is to neutralize this. It is useless to build a conspiracy around this.
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 08:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::I am keeping it cool. The fact that the Israeli and Jewish narrative is completely absent from this article (among many others) makes it impossible for me to AGF and shows a complete disregard in Wikipedia's goal of NPOV. If I see people taking more of an active stance to actually provide NPOV (rather than pushing their own POV) into the project, then I would have a much easier time AGF. Furthermore, I did not say anything as a "provocation." The fact that you would take me saying that as a "provocation" is indicative of yet another issue. If you consider that "provocation" then I could, in turn, consider this entirely biased, one-sided article (at this point anyway) a "provocation" of sorts as well. I believe it is absurd to remind someone about AGF rules when they are showing complete disregard toward the more important rule and goal of NPOV. So until you want to actually help take significant action in these problems, please stop reminding me to AGF. GF is earned in my book, not assumed. My issue is not with you or with any editors in particular, but the fact that systematically, Wikipedia does not seem to be accomplishing its goal of NPOV, therefore, it's very difficult for me to have much faith in it. If you and others would stop telling me to AGF and actually do things to make me have more faith, then you'd perhaps see me keeping much more cool. I just provided many links (far more than half are "good") which can be used. I'm asking for editors to help me incorporate them into this article. Will you help me? Or do you wish to continue reminding me of the rules? --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I have left a word on Michael's page to come and discuss with you.
:::As uninvolved, I will go on reminding you the rules and ask you to focus on content. You should realize that there is no risk I feel like "helping you" if your are not civil and even more friendly with me and with all other contributors...
:::Assuming the current content is "the proof of a conspirary" is against wp:agf because there are many other explanations : the best -from my pov- is that the people who wrote this section simply had these facts in mind and didn't want to develop the full pov's, which is not wise, but which is not against wp:policies.
:::Writing "Hebron is an Israeli city" is a provocation. Everybody in the world, whatever his opinion, knows that this mind is not shared by all and would provocate reaction. And I don't write Hebron is not an Israeli city, as well as I don't write it is one. I just point out writing this can only be provocation.
:::Only next interesting step is now to put the material you found in the article. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 09:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::OK so I suppose you don't wish to help me to put this material into the article. Thank you for articulating that. Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I never once said anything regarding "proof of a conspiracy" - for you to suggest this does not wp:agf. If you stop focusing on the rules you think I am breaking and start focusing on the issues I am bringing up and the content I have brought to the table, it would be appreciated. Your advice for me to focus on the content is rather ironic, considering that is the bulk of what I am trying to do here and you have not taken a good faith effort to help me incorporate the material I have found. I'm just waiting to see who might. i'd particularly like to call upon the people who have helped contribute to any of the sections which have clear NPOV issues to help here. I'm just testing to see how collaborative Wikipedia is and if people are truly striving for NPOV here. Certainly if that is the case, everyone should jump to help me include this relevant information. It's a shame I will most likely have to rely upon notoriously "pro-Israel" editors to do this. A project with the clear intention and goal of NPOV should not encounter such difficulty I would imagine. Again, not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but considering no one is helping me to incorporate this material into the article in an effective way, I am just saying that it is very difficult for me to AGF with regard to the goal of NPOV in this project. Those two rules seem to completely contradict each other. Again, your assumption that I wrote that Hebron is an Israeli city is a "provocation" is not AGF. I would urge you to please AGF. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 10:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has a long history, available in the archives and its drafting has been collaboratively done with the assistance of Jewish/Israeli editors, and is relatively well-sourced for 90% of its history. I myself edited in, among many other historical contributions, note 24 from a French source which says that Hebron has a tradition of strong hostility to Jews, because that is what a scholar I admire says, even though most sources I am familiar with use a different phrasing, i.e. 'highly conservative religious milieu'. That is 'good faith' editing in concrete, providing reliable sources that may say things that support impressions pushed by other editors with an opposed POV. As Ceedjee notes, saying Hebron is an 'Israeli city' is needlessly provocative, apart from being untrue. Hebron is an Palestinian city of 167,000 people, and some Jewish enclaves constituted by 500-700 settlers. The article highlights its strong Jewish history in the past. If anything we need more imput on its Arabic cultural and historical background. There is only one contentious section, and that requires, as I and others have said, collahttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngborative work using quality sources that provide statistics on trends and tensions, rather than nitpicking incidents, or using indifferent journalism reflecting one community's outrage. I have asked Ashley to seek out quality general sources, of a synthetic kind, for the disputed section, and would appreciate it if you too do your homework and find comparable sources of quality that analyse the history of Palestinian violence in Hebron over the last few decades. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:So by "Palestinian city" what do you mean exactly? Does that mean there is or ever was a country called "Palestine?" And if Hamas is the elected power which was democratically elected by the "Palestinians" and since Hamas is widely regarded as a terrorist organization, does that mean that Hebron is controlled by a terrorist organization? To the contrary, I believe Israel controls Hebron, therefore, it is a part of Israel (an actual country.) Last time I checked, cities are in countries. To claim Hebron is "Palestinian" you are trying to imply that there is a country called Palestine, while frankly, there is not, nor was not ever one. Probably the most neutral terminology would be that the city is in "disputed territory." In any event, I posted the aforementioned links mainly in regard to the heavily biased section which lacks any and all information to Arab terrorism against Jews and Israelis, but goes into deep detail about alleged Israeli crimes against Arabs. All of the sources above are reliable. I think for each alleged Zionist crime many editors feel the need to describe, we should have one of equal weight with regard to Arab terrorists in Hebron. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Please stick to relevant points. You are entitled to your opinions but are not a reliable source (neither am I). You appear to have a very vague understanding of the issues regarding the article you are editing and the general historical and political contexts, and would do well to read up before editorializing. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Please stop telling me what to do. You made a point. I refuted it. Arab terrorism is my original point. It's not really touched upon in this section. Well, now it is, since I made some edits (which I'm sure will be reverted.) --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]]. Your last edit was close to disruptive. I'd advise you to revert your erasure of the information on the Baruch Goldstein incident, which is a major element. No one has ever questioned its pertinence here, and it does not need to be burdened with a footnote or sourced because the two pages [[Baruch Goldstein]] and [[Cave of the Patriarchs massacre]] thoroughly document the episode. But if you do the right thing and restore the text (which amounts to editing out important material without good reason), I'll go half way and provide you with the sourcing you demand be supplied. The note required (unnecessarily)to back the statement would be</BR>

:::[[Ian Lustick]],''For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,'', Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, (1988) 2nd edition, 1994 p.viii,(2)Ami Pedahzur, ''The Israeli Response to Jewish Extremism and Violence: Defending Democracy'', Manchester University Press, 2002 pp.83f.

::::Thank you for the advise. What exactly was my last edit "nearly disrupting?" The non-NPOV of this article? --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:::You removed facts so thoroughly a part of the public record, which had links to fully documented pages, that no one on either side had ever contested the justice of them being registered here. If you had a legitimate concern about sourcing, you should have simply left the text as it was and added {{Fact|date=September 2008}}. Your edit amounted to the removal of material you dislike [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. That you didn't do this, but elided the material, shows you are unfamiliar with wiki editorial procedures.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For over 1500 years the Jewish part of Hebron has rarely exceeded 60 (sixty) families....that makes it a predominantly non-Jewish town.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::That's obvious, but this does not mean that the intense sense of connection to the city within Jewish pious literature need be underestimated. That this tradition, cut off by the atrocity of 1929, (for which the Hebronite Arab notables were roundly savaged by Ibn Saud during their visit to his kingdom for their complicity in an act that, for a Muslim, was utterly impious), has been instrumentalized by settlers in part of what Terence Ranger and Eric Hobsbawm would call 'The Invention of Tradition' is also obvious. There is simply no linkage of spiritual continuity between the traditional community which was well integrated culturally into the area (under French protection), and the post-1979 settlers, who are intensely politicized. But this is neither here nor there for the article. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Photo of security checkpoint ==

I believe in the spirit of NPOV, a photo of the aftermath of an Arab terrorist attack in Hebron is needed to balance out the blatant POV pushing in this article. If anyone can help me find one to place in this article, it would be appreciated. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Don't go that way. We already have two photos of Israeli troops patrolling Arabs. There is no photo of the aftermath of a settler terroristic attack on Hebronites, appropriately, and you are shooting yourself in the foot if you post the photo requested, which would only provide a precedent for stacking the page with a parallel photo illustrating Palestinian casualties. Thank you [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh, I see, so "two photos of Israeli troops patrolling Arabs" is the same as a "photo of an Arab terrorist attack in Hebron" hmmm. I see. Also, it seems only one POV can be presented here. Never mind. One can complain about "settlements" and "checkpoints" through a wikipedia article but G-d forbid terrorist attacks in Hebron are mentioned and a photo is shown? I suggest we remove the checkpoint photo then. What is the point? It's called "vital for Israel's security needs." Not sure why the other side always has to make such a big deal about checkpoints. If they didn't celebrate a culture of terrorism, by promoting it through schoolbooks, mosques, tv, the media, and give candies out in the streets after a terrorist attack, perhaps the checkpoints wouldn't be necessary?????? Oh wait, nevermind, this POV isn't welcome at all here on Wikipedia, this palace of NEUTRALITY. '''Don't tell me what not to do.''' --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Insert advice to "cool down" and various WP rules regarding civility and other random things here. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hi, I know you are upset but please, this last comment make me laugh with great joy :-)
:::::Ok. I stop inserting "adivce to cool down and various wp rules regarding ..."
:::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.([[User:Einsteindonut|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)
::::<blockquote>‘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''.</blockquote>

::::<blockquote>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
</blockquote>

::::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:
::::<blockquote>'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</blockquote>
::::(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)[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Well I should be able to add about 10 to every one of yours.......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk: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.... [[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk:Einsteindonut|talk]]) 08:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Sweet candies:
::<BLOCKQUOTE>''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.'' [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3247583 Gideon Levy, Journal of Palestine Studies]</BLOCKQUOTE>
:::Door-to-door:
::<BLOCKQUOTE>''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.<BR/>"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.<BR/>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.<BR/>"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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<br/>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.'' [http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/11/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Human-Shields.php International Herald Tribune]</BLOCKQUOTE>
:Let us stand, then, in silent awe of Israeli purity of arms. &lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 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... [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


[http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=139 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. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813763.html 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 [http://www.btselem.org/english/human_shields/ unofficial common practice.] Purity of arms again.
:&lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 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. --[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80475&videoChannel=1 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. &lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

:::::[[User:Einsteindonut|Einsteindonut]], I'm afraid that [[User:Eleland|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. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>[[User:Michael Safyan|Michael Safyan]]</b></span><sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Michael Safyan|talk]])</sup> 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...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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, [[WP:NPOV|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. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>[[User:Michael Safyan|Michael Safyan]]</b></span><sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Michael Safyan|talk]])</sup> 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. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk: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)....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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?.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk: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......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. (?)[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk: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......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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."?
#I'm not sure what they want clarifying.
#clarification on who canons are?
#clarification on why the canons went looking for relics?
#please clarify on clarification remark....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] would know: he is one of the best wiki specialists on saints.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an order. The clergy of the church of St. Abraham....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[[User:Hertz1888|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:
::::<blockquote> 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.</blockquote>
:::Eventually, it would be good to check out the said book ''Hébron'', and examine the Latin text. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk: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)....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/discussion/078discuss.html Nishidani's find]....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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......[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-dRUGqwLSE4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=Efraim+Ayubi&source=web&ots=Ge5yDUeqJ7&sig=2-1SNKU6jT717-AIhjHnxoXzlcs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result The Israeli-Palestinian War By Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz] The list that ED has used is the official list sent into the UN [http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/95504ba2ad3edfdf85256a29005122b0!OpenDocument UN Doc] E/CN.4/1996/120 of
18 March 1996.....[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/TerrorAttacks.html 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)....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk:Ashley kennedy3|talk]]) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven’t been clear. The sentence running

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

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

::<blockquote>'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
::<blockquote>‘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</blockquote>

The problem was not the PLO/PNA at the time but Islamic Jihad and Hamas. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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"'' :-)...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks,[[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]]. I think [[User:Shuki|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 [[User:Michael Safyan|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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[[User:Nishidani|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. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk: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![[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== POV problems,(illustrative) and a suggestion ==

<blockquote>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</blockquote>

(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<blockquote>‘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,’</blockquote>
(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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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).--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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:
::::<blockquote>'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'</blockquote>

:::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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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....[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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....
#Is the first part required twice?
#refuge from what or who?
#and anyone got a reference for it?...[[User:Ashley kennedy3|Ashley kennedy3]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Problem ==

:::<blockquote>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]</blockquote>

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 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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 determine[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Can we move the whole article from [[Hebron]] to [[Jewish history in Hebron]]? :-D I mean <i>really</i>, 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 <i>never</i> 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): <i>Palestine in Transformation, 1856-1882,</i> p.161, 162. Schölch quoted Delpuget, David: <i>Les Juifs d´Alexandrie, de Jaffa et de Jérusalem en 1865</i>, 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 [[Jew]]ish traders from the city." Unfortunately, I cannot yet find Delpuget [http://books.google.com/books?q=David+Delpuget+Les+Juifs++Jaffa++Jerusalem+1865&btnG=Search+Books on the net], but I´m sure a copy will become available eventually, (just as Yehoseph Schwarz (1850): ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=-CUAAAAAQAAJ 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, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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 [[waqf]]s) 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, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 12:33, 24 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".' [http://www.alfassa.com/heb1.html Shelomo Alfassa, ''A Sephardic Perspective on Hevron Part 1'']January 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'''. [http://www.alfassa.com/contributions.pdf 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?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== Stephen von Gumpenberg ==

I have removed the mention of '
[[Stephen von Gumfenberg]] (1449),{{Fact|date=September 2008}}' 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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:23, 25 September 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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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 Tuirkish Kıbrıslı (Mehmed Emin Pasha)?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:11, 10 October 2008

Pobal Chill Chomáin (PCC, English: People of Kilcommon, also informally known as Gas to Glinsk) is a pressure group based in the parish of Kilcommon, County Mayo, Ireland[1]. It emerged from the larger Shell to Sea campaign in April 2008. The main goal of Shell to Sea is that Royal Dutch Shell, StatoilHydro and Marathon Oil refine the Mayo gas offshore, as is done with Ireland's only other gas project, the Kinsale gas. This would mean it would no longer be necessary to transport raw, untreated natural gas at high pressure through inhabited areas to the intended refinery site at Bellanaboy.

After many years of campaigning aginst Shell and the Irish government (see Corrib gas controversy), PCC have put forward a proposal that the refinery site be moved to Glinsk, a large uninhabited area a few miles to the east of the intended pipeline route and refinery. This would allow Shell and its partners the cost saving of refining the gas on land, while rerouting the pipeline away from inhabited areas. The proposal was publicly backed by Labour Party president Michael D. Higgins, Bishop of Killala, Dr. John Fleming, and local Fine Gael Teachta Dála Michael Ring.

Some members of the Rossport Five are part of the group (Vincent McGrath is its chairman), which is more localised to northwest Mayo than Shell to Sea. A large number of those involved with the new campaign comes from the parish of Kilcommon, which includes the refinery site and all of the intended pipeline route. Many involved with PCC have resumed their involvment with Shell to Sea, as Shell and the government rejected the PCC proposal.

PCC concentrates more on political lobbying and legal avenues than physical protest, and have submitted an application to the European Commission seeking an injunction suspending State consents for the Mayo gas project. It publicly supports some Shell to Sea protest actions, but not all.

References

  1. ^ http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4397&Itemid=38
Stub icon

This article about a political organization is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon 2

This Republic of Ireland politics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebron&oldid=244404239"