This page 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. |
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 Nishidani 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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, Amoruso 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? Nishidani 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Nishidani 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is this.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hebron2000map.html,
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. Nishidani 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Regards
Tewfik, you write:-
The Jewish township of Kiryat Arba lies adjacent to Hebron
some sources saying kiryat arba is suburb:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kiryatarba.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/935
http://www.amana.co.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=367&CategoryID=100
muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1beinin.html
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/934.htm
www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_pragmatism.html
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=201
http://www.forward.com/articles/blood-lines/
http://davidwilder.blogspot.com/1999_04_01_archive.html Amoruso 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you ignored most of the gravamen of my comments on what you wrote. It is poorly phrased in English.
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.
You keep repeating:-
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.
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
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
(1) Palestinefacts.org. is not a reliable neutral source
(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.
(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:
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.
(4)The fourth refers to a page from the ‘Amana Settler Movement’
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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. Nishidani 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's for me, a matter of concision and technically proper language, basically. Let me know what you think. Regards Nishidani 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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, 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, Tewfik Talk 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
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. PatGallacher 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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) Nishidani 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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). Nishidani 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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? Nishidani ( talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Wlf211 ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
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. [1] [2]... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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 [2]). Please read WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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. [3] [4] After his conviction for killing Amran Abu Hamatiya by throwing him out of the speeding Jeep, Yanai Lalza fled rather than start his sentence. [5]...It is an important part of recent Hebron history.... 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:13, 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...... 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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So you gona remove the baby in the pram incident and the article with it?????????????????????? or is your POV showing?????????????????????????????????..... 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:15, 3 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...... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Because 0.7% of the Hebron population get 0.7% (proportionality) of the article devoted to them.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It was just missing in the template. I've added it as an optional parameter.
Canadian Monkey (
talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
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..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:42, 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
David Wilder is a well-known settler within Hebron, and is notable at present.
Baruch Marzel 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) 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 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. Nishidani ( talk) 21:02, 3 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)..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 16:27, 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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The only way to trend for a locality is through newspaper articles..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:02, 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
Special Report, December 2007 Download the report: PDF
Joint Report with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2007 Download the report: PDF
Status Report, August 2003 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF
Case Study No. 17, December 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, Zipped RTF, PDF
Case Study No. 15, August 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF
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
Case Study No. 4, March 1994 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 Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:00, 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Suicide Bombings Keep Sharon Home
Secretary-General condemns 'despicable' Hebron terrorist attack.
Israel Closes Two Universities in Hebron as Terrorist Havens
15,000 and counting ... Byline: MICHAEL FREUND Edition; Daily Section: Opinion Page: 09
Hamas: Dimona bombers came from Hebron
Israeli shot dead in "terrorist attack" on Jerusalem-Hebron road
PA celebrates released murderers
In Drive against Hamas, Mofaz Takes on Assad-Nasrallah Duo
Arab Attack on Hebron Signals Shift of Terrorist Tactics
Why can't Jews buy homes in Hebron?
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 07:59, 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. Nishidani ( talk) 10:25, 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..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
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 Nishidani 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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, Amoruso 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? Nishidani 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Nishidani 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is this.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hebron2000map.html,
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. Nishidani 08:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Regards
Tewfik, you write:-
The Jewish township of Kiryat Arba lies adjacent to Hebron
some sources saying kiryat arba is suburb:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kiryatarba.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/935
http://www.amana.co.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=367&CategoryID=100
muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1beinin.html
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/934.htm
www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_pragmatism.html
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=201
http://www.forward.com/articles/blood-lines/
http://davidwilder.blogspot.com/1999_04_01_archive.html Amoruso 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you ignored most of the gravamen of my comments on what you wrote. It is poorly phrased in English.
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.
You keep repeating:-
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.
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
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
(1) Palestinefacts.org. is not a reliable neutral source
(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.
(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:
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.
(4)The fourth refers to a page from the ‘Amana Settler Movement’
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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. Nishidani 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's for me, a matter of concision and technically proper language, basically. Let me know what you think. Regards Nishidani 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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, 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, Tewfik Talk 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
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. PatGallacher 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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) Nishidani 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
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). Nishidani 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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? Nishidani ( talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Wlf211 ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
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. [1] [2]... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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 [2]). Please read WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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. [3] [4] After his conviction for killing Amran Abu Hamatiya by throwing him out of the speeding Jeep, Yanai Lalza fled rather than start his sentence. [5]...It is an important part of recent Hebron history.... 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:13, 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...... 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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So you gona remove the baby in the pram incident and the article with it?????????????????????? or is your POV showing?????????????????????????????????..... 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:15, 3 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...... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Because 0.7% of the Hebron population get 0.7% (proportionality) of the article devoted to them.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It was just missing in the template. I've added it as an optional parameter.
Canadian Monkey (
talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
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..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 19:42, 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 12:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
David Wilder is a well-known settler within Hebron, and is notable at present.
Baruch Marzel 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) 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 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. Nishidani ( talk) 21:02, 3 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)..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 16:27, 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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The only way to trend for a locality is through newspaper articles..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:02, 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
Special Report, December 2007 Download the report: PDF
Joint Report with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2007 Download the report: PDF
Status Report, August 2003 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF
Case Study No. 17, December 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, Zipped RTF, PDF
Case Study No. 15, August 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF
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
Case Study No. 4, March 1994 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 Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
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... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:00, 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.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Suicide Bombings Keep Sharon Home
Secretary-General condemns 'despicable' Hebron terrorist attack.
Israel Closes Two Universities in Hebron as Terrorist Havens
15,000 and counting ... Byline: MICHAEL FREUND Edition; Daily Section: Opinion Page: 09
Hamas: Dimona bombers came from Hebron
Israeli shot dead in "terrorist attack" on Jerusalem-Hebron road
PA celebrates released murderers
In Drive against Hamas, Mofaz Takes on Assad-Nasrallah Duo
Arab Attack on Hebron Signals Shift of Terrorist Tactics
Why can't Jews buy homes in Hebron?
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 07:59, 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. Nishidani ( talk) 10:25, 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..... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Einsteindonut ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)