This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I did quite a lot to this page, including expanding the 1929 account and the post-1967 Jewish settlement account. I also fixed some of the English in the other parts. The main work remaining to be done is:
I only removed one thing without rewriting it. It was written that some of Levinger's followers had property taken from them or their families in 1929. They might have said that, but the British legal system in 1929 would have made outright theft impossible. Tenants may have been evicted and owners probably had to sell for bad prices, but no houses were simply taken. Anyway I don't think this was relevant to Levinger's expedition so it doesn't matter. Incidentally, I saw some of the pre-1929 Sephardic inhabitants of Hebron on TV who claimed that they tried to move back to Hebron in 1967 with Arab approval, but Levinger's group threatened them and forced them out. -- zero 13:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Those of you who know Arabic: could anybody add the Arabic form (in Arabic letters) of the city's name to the first line (currently only containing an English transcription)? -- Itai 21:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Do we really want to use the JDL as a source? Their own homepage cited here bills themselves as "the most controversial."
I changed the 1994 JDL citation to a 1997 citation from the Jewish Virtual Library. Only a freak would consider the JDL credible enough to cite. Those bastards praise Baruch Goldstein. KrJnX
Why have you chosen to disguise the most fundamental information about Hebron, which is that it is a city illegally and belligerently occupied by the Israeli army for nearly 4 decades? The word Occupation or the phrase Occupied Territories are a staple of every document of international law and many hundreds of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - why have you taken the drastic step of ACTIVELY CONCEALING this most basic fact of international law and of this conflict in general? It is the Occupation that renders the presence of settlers a war crime under Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
And yet these words do not occur even ONCE in your entire entry.
That this is a matter of belligerent military occupation is not merely an opinion, even if Zionists find it indelicate to mention. It has been very pointedly affirmed by extraordinary Assembly of High Contracting Powers to the Geneva Convention in December 2001, by the International Court of Justice, and by many hundreds of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that have been unanimously endorsed by every nation on earth, including the United States.
Instead of pointing to this most crucial fact, you choose to append an offensive chapter about the Intifada, in which you describe the intifada as a terror campaign and the city as a "hotbed" of "Islamic" terrorist activity. Apart from an entry about Dr. Goldstein, which you describe as the act of an individual, you make no mention of the fact, openly discussed in the Israeli press, that Hebron and its environs are home to a number of active and established Jewish terrorist groups, including the "Committee for Road Safety." You describe in detail a number of incidents in which Palestinians killed Israeli civilains in Hebron, but choose to omit any reference to the vastly greater number of incidents in which Hebron residents attacked Palestinians. In fact the residents of Hebron are widely regarded as the most fanatical, violent, extremist and virulently racist of the settlers, and are routinely denounced as such even by Israeli officials and IDF soldiers in the Israeli press. Palestinians and even visiting Americans are routinely stoned, beaten, shot at, and attacked by the heavily-armed Jewish extremists of Hebron, and the forcible seizure of Palestinian property by armed groups of settlers, with the assiatnce of the IDF, takes place regularly. Another property was seized in the last few weeks.
While I appreciate much in your account for its meticulous detail, this is essentially a very selective Zionist left kind of mythology you are providing here - one in which there is no occupation, no daily incidents of Jewish terrorism, only Islamic zealots trying to kill a bunch of peace-loving home-makers. I find it shocking that a reputable forum like Wikipedia would allow such an extremely biased account in which the past and present war crimes of Israel and its settlers, no matter how extraordinary and extreme, have been systematically obscured. What is worse is that in their place is proposed a lurid fairytale of "Islamic" fanatics in which the entire popular national resistance of 3.5 million Palestinian people - resistance to an unwelcome and criminal regime of racial military subjugation - is glibly reduced to "terror."
I think it is in extremely poor taste to use the JDL as a source for your statistics. This would be a bit like citing the Ku Klux Klan as a source for demographic studies about blacks.
Since you add a chapter about the 1929 riots, I am surprised that you failed to include any mention of the fact that they occured only a few days after the visit of the Lubavitcher Rabbi, and that in fact riots erupted a few days after his departure in each of the 5 principal Jewish cities he visited.
Some of these recent edits to break the main content and history of the page into smaller articles seem a lot like a sneaky form of vandalism, since they are major changes with no earlier discussion on the talk page and the main article does not link to these smaller branches. Would someone like to comment, please?
You try to censor anything someone puts here that is Pro-Israel. It is not Palestinian and has been Jewish for 4,000 years. It is the first Jewish city in The World and was bought by Abraham from Ephron The Hittite. The category Israeli Geography should be put back if you also have a category "'Palestinian' cities" when there is no such things as a Palestinian and especially since Hebron is not Palestinian but rather illegally occupied by Arab Muslim terrorists who call themselves Palis.
I don't understand why my little paragraph on the HBRN LMLK seals was deleted. Now there is only an external link, which may not be around forever. These are the oldest known inscriptions with the Hebrew word, "Hebron"; I don't understand why you removed this. Scholars debate the interpretation of the word on the seals, but it is a firmly dated, 2,700-year old artifact of the site. I hope somebody will reconsider adding this. Funhistory 01:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from when you changed Israeli occupation to control, the same term used to describe the Jordanian presence. I don't mean to be blatantly unfair, but I did seek to distinguish between the Arab Jordanian rule which was not revolted against by the population of the territories, and the, let's face it, despised and violently opposed Israeli occupation. Do you have any other way of preserving that distinction without using control for one and occupation for the other? Shall we just add a sort of addendum that Hebron, along with the rest of the population of the West Bank, violently revolted against Israeli rule and accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony? Is it not fair and NPOV to mention this distinction?-- AladdinSE 09:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Notice I didn't say they were loved, and I also said accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony which I think fairly describes the situation. More importantly, we are talking about events that actually transpired in the occupied territories, not the PLO-Jordanian government clashes of Black September, and certainly not hypothetical postulations about how the Jordanians would have reacted had they been revolted against in the territories. They were not. They did not even face significant hostility. I am amenable to using "control" for Israeli and Jordanian presence in the Territories, just as long as we show the plain simple fact that the population despised Israeli rule, and tolerated Jordanian rule.-- AladdinSE 10:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what your cryptic Druze and Hussein comment is about, but I am not in the least surprised by the rest of your comments, for once again you are trying to interject emotional accusations of anti-semitism into a political discussion dealing with the relative Palestinian Hebronite reaction to the two ruling systems. What's more, you brazenly substitute the phrase "Jews are being despised just because they are jews" for what I clearly said was "despised Israeli rule." Please stop these incessant and completely unfounded attempts to interject anti-semitism into a political discussion.-- AladdinSE 12:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
SIGH. Will you PLEASE read carefully before answering. It's your incessant labors to insert charges of anti-semitism here in this Talk discussion that I was talking about. Jayjg and I were discussing the control versus occupation label, and differing viewpoints about how leaving them both described the same way belies the population's very different feelings to both.-- AladdinSE 00:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Mr. SlimVirgin. It is really amazing with your 7000+ edits and the experience one expect you have, probably a different action seemed more reasonable. I do not understand the basis of your judgment on the present material as badly written. Could you understand it? Could you suggest what is wrong with it? What is your measure of a good writing? and how do you compare it to the existing material about Al-Aqsa Intifada?. Also, I wonder how do you quantify that a citation is better than another. Could you tell me please the criterion do you use to deduce that the existing Al-Aqsa Intifada section citations and writing are more coherent, objective, and informative in relation to the aricle subject. I think you should come up with a better explaination to omit my contribution. Simply, My contributions are an attempt to fix this very incomplete section. I think they are essential to give a snapshot of the recent history.
I have removed both sections concerning 1994 massacre and Al-Aqsa Intifada and provided links to the separate articles we already have for those. If someone thinks that some info is missing there, please cut/paste. This is not an article about the conflict, it's about a city. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 09:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guy, as I said on your talk page, the other picture is better. Why don't you upload the other picture to a more neutral name? I suggest "Cave of Patriarchs-Ibrahimi mosque.jpg". Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good idea
Guy Montag 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What are the current disputes about article content, if any? Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just did an NPOV edit. The current dispute revolves primarily, from what I can see, around the caption to the Mosque picture, and some qualifiers inserted by certain editors to water down certain facts and histories, especially regarding the UN. -- AladdinSE 00:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I quote from an excised section: "The facade and minarets of the structure built over the Cave of the Patriarchs by King Herod.]]"
I'm not sure why this is a POV sentence that needs to be reverted. I suppose it might say: "the facade and minarets of the mosque built over the Cave of the Patriarchs was originally built by King Herod," if that is historically accurate. Am I missing something? Nobody is disputing, for example, that the Sultan Ahmed Mosque was originally built as a church... -- Leifern 21:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
I'm also not sure why it was POV. The Herod structure was not a mosque---that came later. Elizmr 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, just a correction: the
Sultan Ahmed Mosque was NOT originally built as a church. It was built right across the
Hagia Sophia, which was built as a church but was later on turned into a mosque, because the Ottoman wanted to build something that was more "glamourous", shall we say, to show that the
Ottoman architects were just as good, if not better, than the
Byzantine ones. It is hailed as one of the masterpieces of
Islamic architecture, which it wouldn't be if it were originally built as a church. Your example should be
Hagia Sophia.
the current year is 2005. how do you know the population of 2006 and 2007? (if it is just a prophecy please note it)
The second population figure for 1997, and all the later projections, are for the Hebron Governate, not Hebron city. That's why the numbers are much bigger. The PCBS page doesn't like my browser, someone else please see if there are Hebron city figures in there. -- Zero 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the disputed sentence: Some of the places occupied by the Jewish settlers in Hebron are places where Jews lived for a century or so prior to 1929, and for a longer time in some very few cases. Most of the places had been Arab occupied for as long as anyone knows. Anon 209's version is propaganda and can't be allowed. -- Zero 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The city was the place where in 1929 jews were cleansed from by a massacre.
Nothing about it in this article ? It was a major event which is used by extrimists settlers as justification for what they now do. Zeq 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It used to be here but it got so long that it was moved to a separate article. See Riots in Palestine of 1929. -- Zero 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi to everyone interested in Hebron. As someone new to Wikipedia, I have a reaction to this encyclopdia entry.
Clearly, as the burial place of Abraham/Ibrahim father to both Ismael and Issac (english alphabetical order for both), Hebron can be considered "ground zero" of one of the world's most long lasting and polarized conflicts. In this Wiki-cosm, I have noticed that the edit history of this page is remarkable for people doing edits to have the page express one "version" or another of what they consider to be the correct history of the place. Clearly, both versions are true but neither can be completely true. Neither version is going to go away by pressing "save page", at least not for long.
It might serve everyone better, and serve as a reputable source of information better, if the contraversy was presented explicity as contraversy rather than implicity by the use of charged language (ie--"youth" vs. "militants") in an ostensibly NPOV account. In this way, multiple versions could be expressed with headings like "Palestinian/Arab World/Muslim point(s) of view" "Israeli/Jewish/pro-Settlement/anti-Settlement point(s) of view", and no final judgement was made about which version is more correct at the end of the day. People with really polarized opinions could work on their own sections and limit edits to other ones. Readers would come away with a more complete understanding. I've noticed this done on other pages.
What do people think? Could we end the "edit war"? Can't we all just get along???? elizmr 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree on that. A human 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the vandal stuff was what I was noticing. A long section about settlements mostly keeps going in and being taken out. I was also noticing the photo caption shifting from "youth" to "militant" or similar. elizmr 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I got a better idea, let the guy rectify all the errors on this page and leave him alone. You know what else I heard, I also heard that he goes by the name "Shelanu" (fake signature: elizmr) 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I DID NOT write the note above--the one signed with my name 18 March 2006. I would not write something like that. elizmr 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Also, I know the statement is clearly not made from my account, but it is disturbing to have that kind of statement made before my signature since it is so disrespectful. Is there anything to be done? elizmr 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just let me fix that paragraph, it's anti-Israel bias is disturbing. What, you think I'm doing this for kicks? It portrays settlers as malicious colonizers and your facts are false. Oh yeah, and that thing about the Massacre survivors in the end, pure fiction get it off. Shelanu
Well could someone explain to me, your site claims that wikipedia entries can be edited out by anyone. This seems like a case of false advertising seeing that I am rectifying errors and not posting dogmatic propaganda like Ramallite. And about signing off on someone else's name, I apologize to you elizmer, just understand that everytime I tried to post something, my I.P adress was showing. Oh, but wait a minute, wasn't there also a rule about privacy protection? Shelanu
If you want to be anonymous you have to create a user ID. It takes 10 seconds to do so. Otherwise your IP shows. A human 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you could start by searching the net or newspapers to see if you can counter the claim that was made about that anti-settler group. Right now we have several sources among others from a The Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, so it does seem like that group exist. You have to discredit those sources or argue that the inclusion in the article in irrelevant or POV. A good place to start is reading this: WP:NPOV. Or maybe instead of removing it you can find sources that support the settlers view and write more about that, but then you have to read this first: WP:V. A human 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would think not. But other editors (e.g. like myself) might not like all you do, then we can argue on these talk pages about that, instead of just reverting each others edits all the time. Take a look at the history of the Hebron page, and see how many contributed to this article, and all of them might have an opinion on the edits that happen here. So you might have to argue alot for some of the edits you want, most editors on Wikipedia have to do that for some of their edits. Alot of my edits get deleted too, thats just how it works. If you do it that way, maybe other editors will agree with you and help you argue your view or improve your edits in ways that support what you believe. Another thing you can do is to help wikipedia by improving articles about issues that are not as controversial, that will give you more respect I believe. I respect those editors who have done lots of work here a bit more than the people who just edit a couple of pages, even though they sometimes oppose my edits. That will also make you better at editing and increasing the chances of getting your edits accepted. A human 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, thanks alot for the info. I'll definatly look into it. I'm sorry for the inconveniance I might have caused. Shelanu
No problem(I speak for myself alone). Well for controversial topics like Israeli settlers, just give a prior warining on the talk page, and make the edit a couple of days later, if noone opposes. Else just be bold and edit whatever you like. People will react to your edits and then you learn how things work. It is also a good idea to take a look at the discussions on the talk pages before editing the actual articles. A human 03:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well... I guess all I can say is that I'll get started as soon as I can with wikipedia, doing legitimate writing. Thanks alot for your help, and expect to deal with me on this issue again in the future. Shelanu
I propose this article be semi-protected. If in fact it is an anonymous wikignome or gnomes who is/are writing biased opinions and taking definitive sides on this controversial topic, then I propose we not allow people who want to anonymously deface the article. In such a sensitive topic, I think it only fair that we be allowed to know who made certain changes to reflect the trends of said authors. Any support for this idea of semi-protection status? Valley2city 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I moved the section on the cave to the lead paragraph for two reasons 1) it is such a centerpiece of the region historically and currently and 2) it broke up the chronological flow of the history section. I hope no one minds. elizmr 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Note: I also added some detail to the history section. elizmr 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading and adding detail to the history section. I'm wondering if the section on Jewish settlement should be moved to this section. As it is, the section is a little choppy because that history is missing from the history section and is an important part of the story. What would people think about relocating it up there? elizmr 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ramalite--Sorry for the lack of citation. As you know, I"m a relative newcomer to this article, and in general it doesn't have too many so I didn't go crazy adding them. Let me know which aspect of the 1929 quote needs citation? I got the info from the Jewish Encyclopedia about some of the Arabs shielding their neighbors or not acting. If this is disputed, let me know. I think it is widely accepted that the Arabs killed the Jews in Hebron after some unfortunate incitement from Jerusalem regarding supposed Jewish desecration of Arab holy places, but let me know if this is disputed and I'll pull out my history books. Thanks for your correction on H1H2 (and not biting if I made a big mistake). I wanted to get Oslo in there somewhere, and I had thought that the PA got "title" at least in theory to the whole of the territories after Oslo :=). Take care, elizmr 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere that he was mentally unstable, but you are quite right to take it out. (but honestly, wouldn't one have to be mentally unstable to open fire on a group of people at prayer???) elizmr 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I came across this article about Hebron and I was a little disturbed about a possible bias that the author might be expressing. This passage goes as follows:
"During the last five years, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased by 20,000 and the current figures show that only around 10,000 Palestinians continue to live in this sector. The reason for this is the continuing harrassment of the Palestinians by the settlers, with the Israeli army standing idly by".
The last sentance of this passage gives the false impression that the IDF is allowing the Jews in Hebron to commit harrasment to the Palestinians, without having to pay any penalty. This assertation is utterly false, and if requested, I will gladly provide evidence needed to delegitimize this false assertion. Any thoughts about it?-- Brad M. 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any objection if I erase "with the Israeli army standing idly by", from this passage, if there isn't, I'l proceed with the edit in two days.-- Brad M. 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"One soldier testified: 'What I understood finally, after six months, was that we were guarding the Palestinians from the Jews; we weren't there to guard and protect the Jews. The Jews are the ones who threaten the Palestinians more in this area." elizmr 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The sources I brought are from human rights organizations that, according to them, documented what they state in their report. The Guardian article gives a statement by an Israeli soldier who says that his impressions of the situation were different from what he was told they would be. I guess any such sources can be used to make the section as NPOV as possible. Ramallite (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to get some info in order, but I know for a fact that the IDF does not "stand idly by". In fact, they are very strict on the settlers with an iron rule. For instance, here's a recent article where they evacuated a house the Jews were occupying just yesterday. As a result of this, five settlers were arrested for non compliance and a many got injured in scuffles. So you can't say there that the IDF was standing idly by. I'll get more info when I find more examples because there are a lot. For now, here's the article.-- Brad M. 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the photo of the graffiti that someone put on this page very disturbing and inflammatory. Hebron, as Abraham/Imbrahim's burial ground is ground zero for some very serious divisive stuff. I don't think it does any good to inflame further with stuff like this. One could find photos of stuff like swasticas painted on Jewish stuff, etc. Could we discuss and consider taking this down? elizmr 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elizmr on this issue, if we show this picture then we'll be obligated to show the vandalism of the Jewish religious artifacts that were destroyed and frankly this would cause a "graffiti" conflict. I'm sure its in everyone's best interest if this would not happen. I also do not like the language it displays and there are other ways to prove a point than resorting to vulgar and malicious language.-- Brad M. 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To AW, in my opinion, you have an extreme POV on this issue that has to be curbed down a notch. First off, you say that Hebron has an agressive, armed, Jewish fundementalist population. Sounds like these Jews are real demons aren't they? Take a look at this article [2], do these people people look like armed fanatics? The family bought this house fair and square yet they were expelled not two days ago by their own all-powerful army who "stands idly by". Now some sources question the legality of the purchase, but for some reason those people just don't look like liars to me. The legality is not the issue, but simply that there was a question in the legality which made the army expel them soonafter, shows that you are wrong in your assertion when you say they stand "idly by". More examples will be provided as it comes. But I wanted to prove to you, and everyone reading, that the Jews of Hebron aren't the monsters you make them out to be, good day.-- Brad M. 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The baruch goldstein incident is mentioned twice, once in "history" and once in "jewish settlement". This doesn't scan all that well. elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Awhile back, someone kept changing the wording on the photo under the page from "youth" to "militants" or similar. I asked about this and was told that the caption the page used was the caption that accompanied the orig photo. If this is true, shouldn't it be changed back to that original caption at this point? elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I ran across what was going on here last night, and here are my thoughts:
So I made a few changes based on the above but welcome any further input. Ramallite (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ramallite for taking off that passage of the soldiers standing "idly by". About the reverting of the names, I thought that the Hebrew name usually came first and I just thought I was reverting a recent edit. Small misshap, anyway thank you.-- Brad M. 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point as to why the Arabic name of Hebron should go first. But on the other hand, the question arises that should the order be based on alphabetical, chronological or demographic factors. Maybe we should discuss these factors further? Also Ramallite, I noticed in your last few comments that you had the feeling that it would'nt be long now before the Arabs "are expelled from Hebron". Could you please elaborate, I'm interested to hear your point.-- Brad M. 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The following entire section was deleted with the above edit summary:
"=== Jordanian rule === +
- Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jordan took over the control of Hebron and the rest of the West Bank. During this time, Israelis were not allowed to enter the West Bank. In violation of the Armistice Agreement, the Jordanian authorities barred Jews from making pilgrimage to the Tomb of the Patriarchs or other holy sites in Hebron. During this time, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed, the Jewish cemetery was desecrated, and an animal pen was built on the ruins of the Abraham Avinu Synagogue. "
Care to explain? Is it untrue that Jordon took control of Hebron? Is it untrue that they did not allow Jews access to the tomb of their ancestors? Is it irrelevant that they violated the armistace agreement? Elizmr 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I'm putting it back. Elizmr 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The armistice agreement does not contain a clause guaranteeing access to hold places. What is says is that a joint commission would be established to find a way of achieving that access (and other things). The commission was formed but never reached agreement. Each side blamed the other. So you can't say that it was a violation of the armistice agreement. Also, most legal scholars (but not all) consider that armistice agreements end hostilities but not the state of war. (This question has come up in Israeli courts several times.) The majority opinion seems to be that the state of war persisted until the Washington Declaration of 1994. -- Zero talk 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, yet the "history" sections of this article barely mention Arabs except as people who did nasty things to Jews. Although a stronger word could be applied, I'll just say that it isn't acceptable. Even the existing Jewish history is very poor; it presents the story of the Jews of Hebron as a saga of endless suffering, which is simply not factual. -- Zero talk 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know Hebron is a city. Just because Israel controls part of it and has settlers there, does not make it all one big Israeli settlement. Feel free to create an Avraham Avinu neighborhood article an add the cat to it, but Hebron is predominately a Palestinian city. BTW, how could anyone say that Arabs are settlers in Hebron? Because they arrived there well before the Crusades? — Khoikhoi 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted a factuality dispute because I noticed, among other things, that it says that there are only 500 Jews in Hebron. I dispute this fact and want to know where the source is from. Other sources indicate that at least 7,500 Jews live within the environs of Hebron. Also, why exactly was the picture of the Cave of Machpela removed from the article? It is the most famous site in Hebron and should headline the article as the main photograph instead of just propagandaish rock-throwing. Valley2city 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Another factuality dispute: The statement, "With the advent of Ottoman Turkish rule in 1516-17, there was a violent pogrom in with many Jews were raped and killed and Jewish homes were plundered." which was part of the Ottoman period (History) is a claim (bias?), and has no references. I took it out. 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Photos by
Justin McIntosh, August 2004. The POV in the captions is not necessarily one that I hold, it's just that I didn't feel like changing them. (decided to just link) —
Khoikhoi 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
(see commons:Category:Hebron)
— Khoi khoi 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
the hebrew name is not only more ancient but it also sounds practically the same to the english name, so it doesn't make sense to put the arabic name first as opposed to Jericho for instance... even though that according to precedence should have been the hebrew name first too. Amoruso 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Hebrew name should come first. This is the english wikipedia and that is the name of the place in English. The English name comes from the Hebrew name, which is also the older name. There is not much clear logic in saying that the historical argument is negated by the numbers of people who live there now (especially since those numbers have been so influcenced and created by violence towards Jews throughout history). Please remember that Avraham purchased the cave and the field around it as a burial place for his wife Sarah mother of Issac and that aside from Abraham only the Jewish side of our big family is buried there. Calling it something based on only Avraham negates the Jewish history there and is kind of, well, revisionist in a pretty deliberate way. This isn't mecca or medina which is undisputably moslem. That being said, I don't think it is crucial that the Hebrew name comes first in Wikipedia but it seems like a pretty low blow to insist that it shouldn't. Elizmr 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Old City of Hebron has been taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers, intent on ridding the area of its indigenous Palestinian population.
The grille of wires over the old city is littered with items that have been thrown down by Israeli settlers onto Palestinians walking below. Not as the article suggests, to stop Palestinians throwing things into settler homes.
Also, the Israeli settlers are there illegally under international law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.101 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006.
Doctors without Borders, The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), part of the World Council of Churches, and an organization called Global Ministries, all refute your claim that the nets are to protect Israelis. This was after a 5 minute google search, I could find many, many more sources if you'd like. It is common knowledge that the nets are to protect Palestinians, I've been to Hebron twice in the past 2 years and the nets in some portions are completely filled with garbage that could only have been put there from above (i.e. by the settlers). The sand bag is likely there to hold the nets in place so they cant be moved by either side. I am removing your photograph and the caption as it is not representative of the true situation in Hebron. You may put it back if you can find backing from a group at least as nonpartisan as doctors without borders. Wlf211 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC
I sought to update the section and include some illustrative photos, the last section in particular was unclear and the mistake in the reference code made it seem very out of place so I combined the two section and added some clarifying information. I also put in information about the Stars of David above the doors (which is generally accepted as hard evidence of former Jewish residences), and included the section about the violence of extremist settlers and tried to show that the violence there is much worse than violence anywhere else in the OPT. Wlf211 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What was the basis for removing the NPOV tag? I see no discussion of it, and the edit gives no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting the edits made on the 18th by Amoruso because aside from one or two controversial sentences, the parts removed are well sourced and for the most part generally accepted. The portions about the netting are fact as well as the part about the 1997 letter sent by the 1929 Descendants. If you can prove that it is not this reason why the netting is there, and why there is garbage on the top of the nets (the settler side) in the photo then show me and you can take it down. I dont think there is any way you could disprove the 1997 letter the reporting comes from reputable newspapers. I am willing to make some compromises on the parts about settler brutality if you can find some sources that are contrary, but I think it is pretty much common knowledge that attacks by Palestinians are much more brutal in other cities like Nablus or Ramallah but attacks by settlers are far and away worse in Hebron than in any other part of the West Bank. I put this information in there because settler attacks are rare in areas of the West Bank besides Hebron so it is notable.-- Wlf211 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that all of this pictures included in this article show Israeli soldiers and other events related to the current conflict? Why is there not even a single picture of the tomb of Abraham, which is far more important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 ( talk • contribs) .
Hey, I don't think we're mentioning BG enough in this article? Could we mention him in the lead, every section, the "also see" section, the external links section, and the notable people section?????? Elizmr 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should include maps, showing the location of Hebron and the jewish settlements on the West Bank, so we can have a better visual understanding of the areas of conflict. I think this should apply to every article about cities, regions or countries, for the display of maps are a great asset in studying geopolitical affairs.
No reason not to add it, it was sourced to a scholary source. [3] It's also frequently described as such [4] [5] it's unthinkable to remove it. Cheers, Amoruso 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We can mention this further down below, in the Geography section. Kiryat Arba is not a "suburb", but an Israeli settlement. Khoi khoi 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What is Hebron's contribution to the history of the Palestinian people? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be Category:Palestinian history or Category:History of Israel. If you made a fork article History of Hebron then those categories may apply, but for now neither of them seem to fit here. -- PiMaster3 talk 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The original name is AL-Khalel and there is no doubt about that and the land is an arabic land and the people is an arabic people what ever the jewish may said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.84.18 ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Why is Haaretz not a reliable source? Khoi khoi 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
While I personally believe Gideon Levy almost never gets his facts wrong, the correct solution to this dispute is to attribute the claim "This has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers" to a more mainstream source. This shouldn't be too hard since it is well known and reported in a large number of places. There are even books about it by academic historians. -- Zero talk 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the source ( [9]) says: "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." So, we should probably match the source. Let's not try to make assumptions like "500 people can't quite harrass 30,000." That would be original research. Khoi khoi 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I did quite a lot to this page, including expanding the 1929 account and the post-1967 Jewish settlement account. I also fixed some of the English in the other parts. The main work remaining to be done is:
I only removed one thing without rewriting it. It was written that some of Levinger's followers had property taken from them or their families in 1929. They might have said that, but the British legal system in 1929 would have made outright theft impossible. Tenants may have been evicted and owners probably had to sell for bad prices, but no houses were simply taken. Anyway I don't think this was relevant to Levinger's expedition so it doesn't matter. Incidentally, I saw some of the pre-1929 Sephardic inhabitants of Hebron on TV who claimed that they tried to move back to Hebron in 1967 with Arab approval, but Levinger's group threatened them and forced them out. -- zero 13:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Those of you who know Arabic: could anybody add the Arabic form (in Arabic letters) of the city's name to the first line (currently only containing an English transcription)? -- Itai 21:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Do we really want to use the JDL as a source? Their own homepage cited here bills themselves as "the most controversial."
I changed the 1994 JDL citation to a 1997 citation from the Jewish Virtual Library. Only a freak would consider the JDL credible enough to cite. Those bastards praise Baruch Goldstein. KrJnX
Why have you chosen to disguise the most fundamental information about Hebron, which is that it is a city illegally and belligerently occupied by the Israeli army for nearly 4 decades? The word Occupation or the phrase Occupied Territories are a staple of every document of international law and many hundreds of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - why have you taken the drastic step of ACTIVELY CONCEALING this most basic fact of international law and of this conflict in general? It is the Occupation that renders the presence of settlers a war crime under Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
And yet these words do not occur even ONCE in your entire entry.
That this is a matter of belligerent military occupation is not merely an opinion, even if Zionists find it indelicate to mention. It has been very pointedly affirmed by extraordinary Assembly of High Contracting Powers to the Geneva Convention in December 2001, by the International Court of Justice, and by many hundreds of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that have been unanimously endorsed by every nation on earth, including the United States.
Instead of pointing to this most crucial fact, you choose to append an offensive chapter about the Intifada, in which you describe the intifada as a terror campaign and the city as a "hotbed" of "Islamic" terrorist activity. Apart from an entry about Dr. Goldstein, which you describe as the act of an individual, you make no mention of the fact, openly discussed in the Israeli press, that Hebron and its environs are home to a number of active and established Jewish terrorist groups, including the "Committee for Road Safety." You describe in detail a number of incidents in which Palestinians killed Israeli civilains in Hebron, but choose to omit any reference to the vastly greater number of incidents in which Hebron residents attacked Palestinians. In fact the residents of Hebron are widely regarded as the most fanatical, violent, extremist and virulently racist of the settlers, and are routinely denounced as such even by Israeli officials and IDF soldiers in the Israeli press. Palestinians and even visiting Americans are routinely stoned, beaten, shot at, and attacked by the heavily-armed Jewish extremists of Hebron, and the forcible seizure of Palestinian property by armed groups of settlers, with the assiatnce of the IDF, takes place regularly. Another property was seized in the last few weeks.
While I appreciate much in your account for its meticulous detail, this is essentially a very selective Zionist left kind of mythology you are providing here - one in which there is no occupation, no daily incidents of Jewish terrorism, only Islamic zealots trying to kill a bunch of peace-loving home-makers. I find it shocking that a reputable forum like Wikipedia would allow such an extremely biased account in which the past and present war crimes of Israel and its settlers, no matter how extraordinary and extreme, have been systematically obscured. What is worse is that in their place is proposed a lurid fairytale of "Islamic" fanatics in which the entire popular national resistance of 3.5 million Palestinian people - resistance to an unwelcome and criminal regime of racial military subjugation - is glibly reduced to "terror."
I think it is in extremely poor taste to use the JDL as a source for your statistics. This would be a bit like citing the Ku Klux Klan as a source for demographic studies about blacks.
Since you add a chapter about the 1929 riots, I am surprised that you failed to include any mention of the fact that they occured only a few days after the visit of the Lubavitcher Rabbi, and that in fact riots erupted a few days after his departure in each of the 5 principal Jewish cities he visited.
Some of these recent edits to break the main content and history of the page into smaller articles seem a lot like a sneaky form of vandalism, since they are major changes with no earlier discussion on the talk page and the main article does not link to these smaller branches. Would someone like to comment, please?
You try to censor anything someone puts here that is Pro-Israel. It is not Palestinian and has been Jewish for 4,000 years. It is the first Jewish city in The World and was bought by Abraham from Ephron The Hittite. The category Israeli Geography should be put back if you also have a category "'Palestinian' cities" when there is no such things as a Palestinian and especially since Hebron is not Palestinian but rather illegally occupied by Arab Muslim terrorists who call themselves Palis.
I don't understand why my little paragraph on the HBRN LMLK seals was deleted. Now there is only an external link, which may not be around forever. These are the oldest known inscriptions with the Hebrew word, "Hebron"; I don't understand why you removed this. Scholars debate the interpretation of the word on the seals, but it is a firmly dated, 2,700-year old artifact of the site. I hope somebody will reconsider adding this. Funhistory 01:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from when you changed Israeli occupation to control, the same term used to describe the Jordanian presence. I don't mean to be blatantly unfair, but I did seek to distinguish between the Arab Jordanian rule which was not revolted against by the population of the territories, and the, let's face it, despised and violently opposed Israeli occupation. Do you have any other way of preserving that distinction without using control for one and occupation for the other? Shall we just add a sort of addendum that Hebron, along with the rest of the population of the West Bank, violently revolted against Israeli rule and accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony? Is it not fair and NPOV to mention this distinction?-- AladdinSE 09:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Notice I didn't say they were loved, and I also said accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony which I think fairly describes the situation. More importantly, we are talking about events that actually transpired in the occupied territories, not the PLO-Jordanian government clashes of Black September, and certainly not hypothetical postulations about how the Jordanians would have reacted had they been revolted against in the territories. They were not. They did not even face significant hostility. I am amenable to using "control" for Israeli and Jordanian presence in the Territories, just as long as we show the plain simple fact that the population despised Israeli rule, and tolerated Jordanian rule.-- AladdinSE 10:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what your cryptic Druze and Hussein comment is about, but I am not in the least surprised by the rest of your comments, for once again you are trying to interject emotional accusations of anti-semitism into a political discussion dealing with the relative Palestinian Hebronite reaction to the two ruling systems. What's more, you brazenly substitute the phrase "Jews are being despised just because they are jews" for what I clearly said was "despised Israeli rule." Please stop these incessant and completely unfounded attempts to interject anti-semitism into a political discussion.-- AladdinSE 12:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
SIGH. Will you PLEASE read carefully before answering. It's your incessant labors to insert charges of anti-semitism here in this Talk discussion that I was talking about. Jayjg and I were discussing the control versus occupation label, and differing viewpoints about how leaving them both described the same way belies the population's very different feelings to both.-- AladdinSE 00:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Mr. SlimVirgin. It is really amazing with your 7000+ edits and the experience one expect you have, probably a different action seemed more reasonable. I do not understand the basis of your judgment on the present material as badly written. Could you understand it? Could you suggest what is wrong with it? What is your measure of a good writing? and how do you compare it to the existing material about Al-Aqsa Intifada?. Also, I wonder how do you quantify that a citation is better than another. Could you tell me please the criterion do you use to deduce that the existing Al-Aqsa Intifada section citations and writing are more coherent, objective, and informative in relation to the aricle subject. I think you should come up with a better explaination to omit my contribution. Simply, My contributions are an attempt to fix this very incomplete section. I think they are essential to give a snapshot of the recent history.
I have removed both sections concerning 1994 massacre and Al-Aqsa Intifada and provided links to the separate articles we already have for those. If someone thinks that some info is missing there, please cut/paste. This is not an article about the conflict, it's about a city. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 09:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guy, as I said on your talk page, the other picture is better. Why don't you upload the other picture to a more neutral name? I suggest "Cave of Patriarchs-Ibrahimi mosque.jpg". Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good idea
Guy Montag 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What are the current disputes about article content, if any? Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just did an NPOV edit. The current dispute revolves primarily, from what I can see, around the caption to the Mosque picture, and some qualifiers inserted by certain editors to water down certain facts and histories, especially regarding the UN. -- AladdinSE 00:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I quote from an excised section: "The facade and minarets of the structure built over the Cave of the Patriarchs by King Herod.]]"
I'm not sure why this is a POV sentence that needs to be reverted. I suppose it might say: "the facade and minarets of the mosque built over the Cave of the Patriarchs was originally built by King Herod," if that is historically accurate. Am I missing something? Nobody is disputing, for example, that the Sultan Ahmed Mosque was originally built as a church... -- Leifern 21:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
I'm also not sure why it was POV. The Herod structure was not a mosque---that came later. Elizmr 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, just a correction: the
Sultan Ahmed Mosque was NOT originally built as a church. It was built right across the
Hagia Sophia, which was built as a church but was later on turned into a mosque, because the Ottoman wanted to build something that was more "glamourous", shall we say, to show that the
Ottoman architects were just as good, if not better, than the
Byzantine ones. It is hailed as one of the masterpieces of
Islamic architecture, which it wouldn't be if it were originally built as a church. Your example should be
Hagia Sophia.
the current year is 2005. how do you know the population of 2006 and 2007? (if it is just a prophecy please note it)
The second population figure for 1997, and all the later projections, are for the Hebron Governate, not Hebron city. That's why the numbers are much bigger. The PCBS page doesn't like my browser, someone else please see if there are Hebron city figures in there. -- Zero 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the disputed sentence: Some of the places occupied by the Jewish settlers in Hebron are places where Jews lived for a century or so prior to 1929, and for a longer time in some very few cases. Most of the places had been Arab occupied for as long as anyone knows. Anon 209's version is propaganda and can't be allowed. -- Zero 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The city was the place where in 1929 jews were cleansed from by a massacre.
Nothing about it in this article ? It was a major event which is used by extrimists settlers as justification for what they now do. Zeq 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It used to be here but it got so long that it was moved to a separate article. See Riots in Palestine of 1929. -- Zero 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi to everyone interested in Hebron. As someone new to Wikipedia, I have a reaction to this encyclopdia entry.
Clearly, as the burial place of Abraham/Ibrahim father to both Ismael and Issac (english alphabetical order for both), Hebron can be considered "ground zero" of one of the world's most long lasting and polarized conflicts. In this Wiki-cosm, I have noticed that the edit history of this page is remarkable for people doing edits to have the page express one "version" or another of what they consider to be the correct history of the place. Clearly, both versions are true but neither can be completely true. Neither version is going to go away by pressing "save page", at least not for long.
It might serve everyone better, and serve as a reputable source of information better, if the contraversy was presented explicity as contraversy rather than implicity by the use of charged language (ie--"youth" vs. "militants") in an ostensibly NPOV account. In this way, multiple versions could be expressed with headings like "Palestinian/Arab World/Muslim point(s) of view" "Israeli/Jewish/pro-Settlement/anti-Settlement point(s) of view", and no final judgement was made about which version is more correct at the end of the day. People with really polarized opinions could work on their own sections and limit edits to other ones. Readers would come away with a more complete understanding. I've noticed this done on other pages.
What do people think? Could we end the "edit war"? Can't we all just get along???? elizmr 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree on that. A human 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the vandal stuff was what I was noticing. A long section about settlements mostly keeps going in and being taken out. I was also noticing the photo caption shifting from "youth" to "militant" or similar. elizmr 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I got a better idea, let the guy rectify all the errors on this page and leave him alone. You know what else I heard, I also heard that he goes by the name "Shelanu" (fake signature: elizmr) 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I DID NOT write the note above--the one signed with my name 18 March 2006. I would not write something like that. elizmr 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Also, I know the statement is clearly not made from my account, but it is disturbing to have that kind of statement made before my signature since it is so disrespectful. Is there anything to be done? elizmr 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just let me fix that paragraph, it's anti-Israel bias is disturbing. What, you think I'm doing this for kicks? It portrays settlers as malicious colonizers and your facts are false. Oh yeah, and that thing about the Massacre survivors in the end, pure fiction get it off. Shelanu
Well could someone explain to me, your site claims that wikipedia entries can be edited out by anyone. This seems like a case of false advertising seeing that I am rectifying errors and not posting dogmatic propaganda like Ramallite. And about signing off on someone else's name, I apologize to you elizmer, just understand that everytime I tried to post something, my I.P adress was showing. Oh, but wait a minute, wasn't there also a rule about privacy protection? Shelanu
If you want to be anonymous you have to create a user ID. It takes 10 seconds to do so. Otherwise your IP shows. A human 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you could start by searching the net or newspapers to see if you can counter the claim that was made about that anti-settler group. Right now we have several sources among others from a The Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, so it does seem like that group exist. You have to discredit those sources or argue that the inclusion in the article in irrelevant or POV. A good place to start is reading this: WP:NPOV. Or maybe instead of removing it you can find sources that support the settlers view and write more about that, but then you have to read this first: WP:V. A human 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would think not. But other editors (e.g. like myself) might not like all you do, then we can argue on these talk pages about that, instead of just reverting each others edits all the time. Take a look at the history of the Hebron page, and see how many contributed to this article, and all of them might have an opinion on the edits that happen here. So you might have to argue alot for some of the edits you want, most editors on Wikipedia have to do that for some of their edits. Alot of my edits get deleted too, thats just how it works. If you do it that way, maybe other editors will agree with you and help you argue your view or improve your edits in ways that support what you believe. Another thing you can do is to help wikipedia by improving articles about issues that are not as controversial, that will give you more respect I believe. I respect those editors who have done lots of work here a bit more than the people who just edit a couple of pages, even though they sometimes oppose my edits. That will also make you better at editing and increasing the chances of getting your edits accepted. A human 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, thanks alot for the info. I'll definatly look into it. I'm sorry for the inconveniance I might have caused. Shelanu
No problem(I speak for myself alone). Well for controversial topics like Israeli settlers, just give a prior warining on the talk page, and make the edit a couple of days later, if noone opposes. Else just be bold and edit whatever you like. People will react to your edits and then you learn how things work. It is also a good idea to take a look at the discussions on the talk pages before editing the actual articles. A human 03:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well... I guess all I can say is that I'll get started as soon as I can with wikipedia, doing legitimate writing. Thanks alot for your help, and expect to deal with me on this issue again in the future. Shelanu
I propose this article be semi-protected. If in fact it is an anonymous wikignome or gnomes who is/are writing biased opinions and taking definitive sides on this controversial topic, then I propose we not allow people who want to anonymously deface the article. In such a sensitive topic, I think it only fair that we be allowed to know who made certain changes to reflect the trends of said authors. Any support for this idea of semi-protection status? Valley2city 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I moved the section on the cave to the lead paragraph for two reasons 1) it is such a centerpiece of the region historically and currently and 2) it broke up the chronological flow of the history section. I hope no one minds. elizmr 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Note: I also added some detail to the history section. elizmr 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading and adding detail to the history section. I'm wondering if the section on Jewish settlement should be moved to this section. As it is, the section is a little choppy because that history is missing from the history section and is an important part of the story. What would people think about relocating it up there? elizmr 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ramalite--Sorry for the lack of citation. As you know, I"m a relative newcomer to this article, and in general it doesn't have too many so I didn't go crazy adding them. Let me know which aspect of the 1929 quote needs citation? I got the info from the Jewish Encyclopedia about some of the Arabs shielding their neighbors or not acting. If this is disputed, let me know. I think it is widely accepted that the Arabs killed the Jews in Hebron after some unfortunate incitement from Jerusalem regarding supposed Jewish desecration of Arab holy places, but let me know if this is disputed and I'll pull out my history books. Thanks for your correction on H1H2 (and not biting if I made a big mistake). I wanted to get Oslo in there somewhere, and I had thought that the PA got "title" at least in theory to the whole of the territories after Oslo :=). Take care, elizmr 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere that he was mentally unstable, but you are quite right to take it out. (but honestly, wouldn't one have to be mentally unstable to open fire on a group of people at prayer???) elizmr 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I came across this article about Hebron and I was a little disturbed about a possible bias that the author might be expressing. This passage goes as follows:
"During the last five years, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased by 20,000 and the current figures show that only around 10,000 Palestinians continue to live in this sector. The reason for this is the continuing harrassment of the Palestinians by the settlers, with the Israeli army standing idly by".
The last sentance of this passage gives the false impression that the IDF is allowing the Jews in Hebron to commit harrasment to the Palestinians, without having to pay any penalty. This assertation is utterly false, and if requested, I will gladly provide evidence needed to delegitimize this false assertion. Any thoughts about it?-- Brad M. 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any objection if I erase "with the Israeli army standing idly by", from this passage, if there isn't, I'l proceed with the edit in two days.-- Brad M. 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"One soldier testified: 'What I understood finally, after six months, was that we were guarding the Palestinians from the Jews; we weren't there to guard and protect the Jews. The Jews are the ones who threaten the Palestinians more in this area." elizmr 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The sources I brought are from human rights organizations that, according to them, documented what they state in their report. The Guardian article gives a statement by an Israeli soldier who says that his impressions of the situation were different from what he was told they would be. I guess any such sources can be used to make the section as NPOV as possible. Ramallite (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to get some info in order, but I know for a fact that the IDF does not "stand idly by". In fact, they are very strict on the settlers with an iron rule. For instance, here's a recent article where they evacuated a house the Jews were occupying just yesterday. As a result of this, five settlers were arrested for non compliance and a many got injured in scuffles. So you can't say there that the IDF was standing idly by. I'll get more info when I find more examples because there are a lot. For now, here's the article.-- Brad M. 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the photo of the graffiti that someone put on this page very disturbing and inflammatory. Hebron, as Abraham/Imbrahim's burial ground is ground zero for some very serious divisive stuff. I don't think it does any good to inflame further with stuff like this. One could find photos of stuff like swasticas painted on Jewish stuff, etc. Could we discuss and consider taking this down? elizmr 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elizmr on this issue, if we show this picture then we'll be obligated to show the vandalism of the Jewish religious artifacts that were destroyed and frankly this would cause a "graffiti" conflict. I'm sure its in everyone's best interest if this would not happen. I also do not like the language it displays and there are other ways to prove a point than resorting to vulgar and malicious language.-- Brad M. 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To AW, in my opinion, you have an extreme POV on this issue that has to be curbed down a notch. First off, you say that Hebron has an agressive, armed, Jewish fundementalist population. Sounds like these Jews are real demons aren't they? Take a look at this article [2], do these people people look like armed fanatics? The family bought this house fair and square yet they were expelled not two days ago by their own all-powerful army who "stands idly by". Now some sources question the legality of the purchase, but for some reason those people just don't look like liars to me. The legality is not the issue, but simply that there was a question in the legality which made the army expel them soonafter, shows that you are wrong in your assertion when you say they stand "idly by". More examples will be provided as it comes. But I wanted to prove to you, and everyone reading, that the Jews of Hebron aren't the monsters you make them out to be, good day.-- Brad M. 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The baruch goldstein incident is mentioned twice, once in "history" and once in "jewish settlement". This doesn't scan all that well. elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Awhile back, someone kept changing the wording on the photo under the page from "youth" to "militants" or similar. I asked about this and was told that the caption the page used was the caption that accompanied the orig photo. If this is true, shouldn't it be changed back to that original caption at this point? elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I ran across what was going on here last night, and here are my thoughts:
So I made a few changes based on the above but welcome any further input. Ramallite (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ramallite for taking off that passage of the soldiers standing "idly by". About the reverting of the names, I thought that the Hebrew name usually came first and I just thought I was reverting a recent edit. Small misshap, anyway thank you.-- Brad M. 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point as to why the Arabic name of Hebron should go first. But on the other hand, the question arises that should the order be based on alphabetical, chronological or demographic factors. Maybe we should discuss these factors further? Also Ramallite, I noticed in your last few comments that you had the feeling that it would'nt be long now before the Arabs "are expelled from Hebron". Could you please elaborate, I'm interested to hear your point.-- Brad M. 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The following entire section was deleted with the above edit summary:
"=== Jordanian rule === +
- Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jordan took over the control of Hebron and the rest of the West Bank. During this time, Israelis were not allowed to enter the West Bank. In violation of the Armistice Agreement, the Jordanian authorities barred Jews from making pilgrimage to the Tomb of the Patriarchs or other holy sites in Hebron. During this time, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed, the Jewish cemetery was desecrated, and an animal pen was built on the ruins of the Abraham Avinu Synagogue. "
Care to explain? Is it untrue that Jordon took control of Hebron? Is it untrue that they did not allow Jews access to the tomb of their ancestors? Is it irrelevant that they violated the armistace agreement? Elizmr 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I'm putting it back. Elizmr 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The armistice agreement does not contain a clause guaranteeing access to hold places. What is says is that a joint commission would be established to find a way of achieving that access (and other things). The commission was formed but never reached agreement. Each side blamed the other. So you can't say that it was a violation of the armistice agreement. Also, most legal scholars (but not all) consider that armistice agreements end hostilities but not the state of war. (This question has come up in Israeli courts several times.) The majority opinion seems to be that the state of war persisted until the Washington Declaration of 1994. -- Zero talk 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, yet the "history" sections of this article barely mention Arabs except as people who did nasty things to Jews. Although a stronger word could be applied, I'll just say that it isn't acceptable. Even the existing Jewish history is very poor; it presents the story of the Jews of Hebron as a saga of endless suffering, which is simply not factual. -- Zero talk 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know Hebron is a city. Just because Israel controls part of it and has settlers there, does not make it all one big Israeli settlement. Feel free to create an Avraham Avinu neighborhood article an add the cat to it, but Hebron is predominately a Palestinian city. BTW, how could anyone say that Arabs are settlers in Hebron? Because they arrived there well before the Crusades? — Khoikhoi 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted a factuality dispute because I noticed, among other things, that it says that there are only 500 Jews in Hebron. I dispute this fact and want to know where the source is from. Other sources indicate that at least 7,500 Jews live within the environs of Hebron. Also, why exactly was the picture of the Cave of Machpela removed from the article? It is the most famous site in Hebron and should headline the article as the main photograph instead of just propagandaish rock-throwing. Valley2city 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Another factuality dispute: The statement, "With the advent of Ottoman Turkish rule in 1516-17, there was a violent pogrom in with many Jews were raped and killed and Jewish homes were plundered." which was part of the Ottoman period (History) is a claim (bias?), and has no references. I took it out. 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Photos by
Justin McIntosh, August 2004. The POV in the captions is not necessarily one that I hold, it's just that I didn't feel like changing them. (decided to just link) —
Khoikhoi 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
(see commons:Category:Hebron)
— Khoi khoi 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
the hebrew name is not only more ancient but it also sounds practically the same to the english name, so it doesn't make sense to put the arabic name first as opposed to Jericho for instance... even though that according to precedence should have been the hebrew name first too. Amoruso 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Hebrew name should come first. This is the english wikipedia and that is the name of the place in English. The English name comes from the Hebrew name, which is also the older name. There is not much clear logic in saying that the historical argument is negated by the numbers of people who live there now (especially since those numbers have been so influcenced and created by violence towards Jews throughout history). Please remember that Avraham purchased the cave and the field around it as a burial place for his wife Sarah mother of Issac and that aside from Abraham only the Jewish side of our big family is buried there. Calling it something based on only Avraham negates the Jewish history there and is kind of, well, revisionist in a pretty deliberate way. This isn't mecca or medina which is undisputably moslem. That being said, I don't think it is crucial that the Hebrew name comes first in Wikipedia but it seems like a pretty low blow to insist that it shouldn't. Elizmr 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Old City of Hebron has been taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers, intent on ridding the area of its indigenous Palestinian population.
The grille of wires over the old city is littered with items that have been thrown down by Israeli settlers onto Palestinians walking below. Not as the article suggests, to stop Palestinians throwing things into settler homes.
Also, the Israeli settlers are there illegally under international law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.101 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006.
Doctors without Borders, The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), part of the World Council of Churches, and an organization called Global Ministries, all refute your claim that the nets are to protect Israelis. This was after a 5 minute google search, I could find many, many more sources if you'd like. It is common knowledge that the nets are to protect Palestinians, I've been to Hebron twice in the past 2 years and the nets in some portions are completely filled with garbage that could only have been put there from above (i.e. by the settlers). The sand bag is likely there to hold the nets in place so they cant be moved by either side. I am removing your photograph and the caption as it is not representative of the true situation in Hebron. You may put it back if you can find backing from a group at least as nonpartisan as doctors without borders. Wlf211 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC
I sought to update the section and include some illustrative photos, the last section in particular was unclear and the mistake in the reference code made it seem very out of place so I combined the two section and added some clarifying information. I also put in information about the Stars of David above the doors (which is generally accepted as hard evidence of former Jewish residences), and included the section about the violence of extremist settlers and tried to show that the violence there is much worse than violence anywhere else in the OPT. Wlf211 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What was the basis for removing the NPOV tag? I see no discussion of it, and the edit gives no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting the edits made on the 18th by Amoruso because aside from one or two controversial sentences, the parts removed are well sourced and for the most part generally accepted. The portions about the netting are fact as well as the part about the 1997 letter sent by the 1929 Descendants. If you can prove that it is not this reason why the netting is there, and why there is garbage on the top of the nets (the settler side) in the photo then show me and you can take it down. I dont think there is any way you could disprove the 1997 letter the reporting comes from reputable newspapers. I am willing to make some compromises on the parts about settler brutality if you can find some sources that are contrary, but I think it is pretty much common knowledge that attacks by Palestinians are much more brutal in other cities like Nablus or Ramallah but attacks by settlers are far and away worse in Hebron than in any other part of the West Bank. I put this information in there because settler attacks are rare in areas of the West Bank besides Hebron so it is notable.-- Wlf211 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that all of this pictures included in this article show Israeli soldiers and other events related to the current conflict? Why is there not even a single picture of the tomb of Abraham, which is far more important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 ( talk • contribs) .
Hey, I don't think we're mentioning BG enough in this article? Could we mention him in the lead, every section, the "also see" section, the external links section, and the notable people section?????? Elizmr 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should include maps, showing the location of Hebron and the jewish settlements on the West Bank, so we can have a better visual understanding of the areas of conflict. I think this should apply to every article about cities, regions or countries, for the display of maps are a great asset in studying geopolitical affairs.
No reason not to add it, it was sourced to a scholary source. [3] It's also frequently described as such [4] [5] it's unthinkable to remove it. Cheers, Amoruso 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We can mention this further down below, in the Geography section. Kiryat Arba is not a "suburb", but an Israeli settlement. Khoi khoi 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What is Hebron's contribution to the history of the Palestinian people? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be Category:Palestinian history or Category:History of Israel. If you made a fork article History of Hebron then those categories may apply, but for now neither of them seem to fit here. -- PiMaster3 talk 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The original name is AL-Khalel and there is no doubt about that and the land is an arabic land and the people is an arabic people what ever the jewish may said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.84.18 ( talk) 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Why is Haaretz not a reliable source? Khoi khoi 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
While I personally believe Gideon Levy almost never gets his facts wrong, the correct solution to this dispute is to attribute the claim "This has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers" to a more mainstream source. This shouldn't be too hard since it is well known and reported in a large number of places. There are even books about it by academic historians. -- Zero talk 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the source ( [9]) says: "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." So, we should probably match the source. Let's not try to make assumptions like "500 people can't quite harrass 30,000." That would be original research. Khoi khoi 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)