Talk:Hebron/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Hebron. 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 4

Again someone moved what I added

I added to the first part that Hebron is a "Jewish" city. and it has been delted! They said that is cause it is now 2012, not 1864. But if you look at the source, it says it is controlled by Muslims and very little Jews but is still described as a jewish town. So what could it mean? And why cant we say what is says in this book? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor changed the opening sentence to say that Hebron "is a Palestinian Jewish city", with edit summary stating that it was a "Jewish city in 1864 accroding to this bishop". As Hebron is a town in existence at present time, it is reasonable for the opening sentence to say what it is today. And you can't do that based on a source published over a hundred years ago. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well please explain what "Though subject to Mohammedan control, Hebron is a thoroughly Jewish city. The population is estimated at 10,000, 500 of whom are Polish Jews." means then. 10,000 or 100,000 arabs & 500 jews - it is still "a thoroughly Jewish city". why? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the source refers to Hebron of 1864, which means it is quite outdated for describing present day Hebron. The quality of the source is irrelevant as it's simply too old. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with wiki core policies, Baybars. Your edit violates WP:Undue and exemplifies WP:fringe POV pushing. A self-contradictory remark (5% of a population transforms the culture and identity of the 95% other ethnic group, into the minority identity) made by an American Methodist Episcopal bishop after a day or two in a foreign city one and a half centuries ago does not constitute evidence for anything other than the gentleman's peculiar cast of mind.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Baybars. I’ve removed Laurent d'Arvieux, it says nothing not already present in the text, and the only point in citing that appears to be to add one more source that might accentuate the difficulties of the Jewish community. There are many sources for that, but we are not writing a history of Jewish oppression and angst in Hebron, but the history of the city. I think we need some organization here, by creating a section heading which gives the details, successively, of Jewish develops from the early 1500s down to the mid 1800s. Otherwise narrative flow is destroyed by a text that keeps interleaving a history with items about one community, and makes for awkwardly disjointed reading.

(b) I’ve reedited the section on the Maccabees. What you did was plunk in a tertiary source remark for its value as asserting ‘the city was reclaimed as a Jewish town’ which the following secondary source by a specialist denies, if you read it. Uptodate specialist sources are to be preferred to dated encyclopaedic entries, and even then, adding ‘stuff’ without an eye to the disruptions that may arise in context is poor editing.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Arvieux removed because of duplication of material?

Nishidani has removed a blob from a descritipn given in 1659 b/c: " it says nothing not already present in the text". What I can see new is the following stuff:

"A castle now stands on its highest elevation" - that is nowhere mentioned
"They admit into it neither wine nor brandy. Water is the only drink." - also not mentioned (it is actually this bit I found and wanted to add, but on further investigation found that he had more to say about the town)
The district is "fertile and fruitful"
The grapes are carried to Jerusalem, and make good wine"
The raisins "are as yellow as gold, and of exquisite flavour"
"glass of all colours" and "flower-vases"

It also happens to say the locals "lay heavy contributions on the few Jews whom they, not without difficulty, suffer to inhabit here." That is not mentioned that it happened in the 17th cent. either?

I don't want to have sections here about "Jewish development", it is as you say, for the whole city. If someone wants, they can make a separate page about the Jewish history of Hebron, not here. Here we just a bits and bobs which are significant to all communites. By the way there are two massive paragrpah in the Islamic era, and the second one repeats somethings which are said it the top one??!!

Later it says "n the early 18th-century, the Jewish community suffered from heavy debts, almost quadrupling from 1717 to 1729" but nowhere did it mention that this was probably due to "heavy contributions" or extortion. Thank goodness you left that bit ("n the 1760s, Hebron's Jews were "almost crushed" from the extortion practiced by the Turkish pashas.") or did you miss it?! Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article, most of those observations are already there. I don't think your editing illustrates you an interest in the whole city. Nearly everything you see reflects a settler narrative, rather than a scholarly narrative. You've even put into the history section a section on Creation, I hope with a smile, if not a smirk. I'll have to fix that tomorrow.

There are dozens of mentions of the poverty of the Jewish community there and all over Palestine, which subsisted basically on handouts raised from philanthropists in the diaspora (Tzedakah), . The sheiks certainly extorted monies, as the Bedouin exacted 'taxes' on travellers. But the troubles of the community can't be assigned to 'greedy Arabs', if only because in feudal times everyone in these villages was subject to outrageous extortions or demands by the reigning power, and reading it ethnically suits a contemporary POV. Letters were regularly sent assistance. Many migrated to both Jerusalem and Hebron late in life out of a religious desire to die there, and had no independent means for a dignified life above the sheer poverty line. The productive rooted, agricultural communities form part of a much later history. Primary texts are useless in this regard since they spin for the readership a visit for pious ends, to entreat donations. One needs not primary sources, but a good economic history dealing with the overall situation of these communities in a neutral, evaluative scholarly way, like Jacob Barnay's The Jews in Palestine in the Eighteenth Century. Jewish communities all over the mediterranean from Venice to Salonika to Istambul taxed themselves, or fined malfactors in their midst, or their consumption of wine in order to provide funds for These exist, and save us all of this primary source documentation.

So, please try to use, as per the page examples, academic sources, format them correctly, and deal with the generalities rather than seeding the text with partial lachrimose data.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Canaanite royal city? Yes or no?

Currently it says "Hebron was originally a Canaanite royal city.[26]" but nerdmans dict. says "Extrabiblical evidence suggests that Hebron may have been a Canaanite royal city." So was it or wasn't it? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Enjoyed the pun about Nerd-mans. Nothing in ancient history is known for certain, we only have probabilities. There are several strong sources that assert it was. Our source uses 'may'. Either one adopts those sources which better reflect the language used, or one alters the text in accordance with the Eerdmans' source to read 'Hebron may have been a royal city of the Canaanites.' Whether it was or not shouldn't interest editors.

You added in the biblical date for Hebron's foundation. That should be removed as trivia or legend. Archeologists establish that, digs show it a thousand years older, and what the late writers of biblical legends wrote, and later generations calculated about time lines, is neither here nor there. The bible is not a reliable source except for its own stories. Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, acc. to Nadav Naʼaman in Canaan in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. - Page 183, "The Hebron tablet clearly indicates that the site was the center of an independent kingdom and that the king mentioned therein was the king of Hebron." And should we ignore Leonard H. Lesko who said in 1998 that "the Hebron tablet was found in salvage excavations and has no firm archaeological context as so far published."? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So, what has that to do with the price of fish?Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jews prevented from living in Hebron in 1860s

It says: One former IDF soldier, with experience in policing Hebron, has testified to Breaking the Silence, that on the briefing wall of his unit a sign describing their mission aim was hung that read: "To disrupt the routine of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood."[212]. I want to add "In the 1860s it was said that Muslim intolerance prevented many Jews from settling in Hebron." Is that okay>? Based on [1] (and i actually want to add something from that about david's poll, then I found this) Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It was written by a Christian evangelical traveller who regarded all Islamic presences as a 'Mohammadan desolation' and whose only historic guide was the Bible and is not a reliable source for this, as opposed to a statement of what Randall thought in 1862. We are now in a position to document much of the history of Hebron from secondary scholarly sources, (c) you appear to be trying to present a defence of recent events by recourse to negative examples in past Muslim Hebronite behaviour, and we don't do that kind of thing in an encyclopedia (d) what Randall wrote as a passerby is denied by details we already have,i.e.four years later:

Hungarian Jews of the Karlin Hasidic court settled in another part of the city in 1866. Arab-Jewish relations were good, and Alter Rivlin, who spoke Arabic and Syrian-Aramaic, was appointed Jewish representative to the city council.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude the words of contemporary travelers, properly attributed of course. It's somewhat amsuing (though not surprising) that material from someone who's not an historian (or even an academic) is used in an attempt to disprove what people at the time said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) Contemporary travellers have a thousand opinions. We've used some, where necessary, with an eye to their scholarly interests in Palestine (b)The piously evangelical text in question begins by lamenting the 'Moslem desolation' of the Holy Land. Do you put that in as well? (c) Shragai was reviewing two history books. (d) in context, the remark 1862 contradicts the evidence immediately after it. That is POV pastiche editing (e) the aim of this page is to strive wherever for the best sources, grounded in academic histories wherever possible. I'm not happy with Shragai either, but he lives there, and reads books, Randall past through in 2 days, and the only Muslim he mentions was the woman who prepared their dinner.Next we'll be citing Joe Blow on the I/P conflict because he stayed at the Hilton for a day.Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Shragai was quoting from a book written by an academic who's an expert in the field? Not as far as I've been able to dig up. Do you have any other information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal comment from a casual visitor with no reputation as an observer. Nope. Zero^talk 08:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@ NMMNG :

In an article no information can be added from a primary source. It has to be corroborted from a secondary reliable source. More, the way to introduce the information depends what other reliable secondary sources say about it.

In a discussion about the removal of potentially dubious content, primary material can be used to argue for the removal (and argue that the secondary source that is used would not be reliable) but this is not a strong argument. Secondary reliable sources will always be better.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there are several other questionable edits here, but I'll wait until Baybars is through before addressing them. But the 1775 'blood libel' incident requires clarification from a better source. Blood libel has a very specific meaning, and appears to be used generically in the two sources for any accusation a Jew murdered someone, as opposed to a Jew murdering someone for ritual ends. Blood libels as at Damascus usually ended in slaughter. The sheikh at that time, from memory, was notorious for his rapacity. The community had just received charity funds after an appeal for them that began in the early 1770s. The issue needs clarification from strong sources, otherwise the gloss on it as blood libel should be removed. Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of primary sources, most of whom are travelers, already in the article. Frankly, I don't really care specifically about this one. I do care about the attempt to whitewash how the Jews were treated. The article saying they were treated well is simply ahistorical nonsense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, travelers' tales are primary sources. But they aren't all the same. Some travelers (like Robinson, Guerin, the SWP guys, etc) were serious observers who are frequently cited by scholars. Others are unknown and uncelebrated, and there's no reason to be kinder to them than we would be to a random modern tourist who passed through briefly. Regarding the situation of the Hebron Jews, it is easy to find sources with both positive and negative remarks. Obviously we should aim for balance. Zero^talk 00:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, balance is needed. In the article at present we have: "Israeli organization B'Tselem states that there have been "grave violations" of Palestinian human rights in Hebron because of the "presence of the settlers within the city." The organization cites regular incidents of "almost daily physical violence and property damage by settlers in the city", curfews and restrictions of movement that are "among the harshest in the Occupied Territories", and violence and by Israeli border policemen and the IDF against Palestinians who live in the city's H2 sector." against "almost crushed from the extortion practiced by the Turkish pashas" and "with a strong tradition of hostility to Jews." Ie. there is alot of description about how the arabs of today are persecuted, but very little about Jews who were persecuted in the past. I have tried to add this, but each time it is removed or not allowed. It would be good if there was Betzelem in 1868. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, this page is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about Hebron the city, its culture and institutions. To try to 'balance' the extremely meticulously documented eyewitness reports of what has taken place since 1967, in 45 years of military occupation, with what took place over a thousands years is quite pointless. The Hebronite Jews were historically a 'tiny minority', divided into sects - the Karaites themselves were ill-regarded by orthodox Jews, and, in modern times, split in a strong religious-cultural divide, and not one community, who shared little between them. There's abundant information on this divide. I don't use it, but I think retroactive attempt to 'imagine' a cohesive unified Jewish community (like any retroactive identitarian reconstruction, historically misleading) and pages can't be manipulated to push that fiction. We have, for the 'tiny minority' more details for certain periods than for the large Arab majority, because, unfortunately the detailed Arab histories of Hebron are not available, and this too troubles the page. Turkish pashas extorted money from everyone, Arabs included. A Turkish pasha drafted 700 reluctant Hebronites into his army, and 500 were decimated. Authorities treated most of their subjects with contempt as often as not, and to single out on ethnic grounds a minority and frame everything that happened to them as explainable in terms of oppressed Jews vs. oppressive Arab (or Turk) is intensely boring and POV-driven. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case it may well be needed to make a separate page about history of the Jews in Hebron. But I wouldn't remove all mention of the communtiy in this page. Just cause we don't have material for arab history available, should not mean we leave out availabe Jewish history. Isn't that what you mean by defending the inclusion of so much of the last 45 years - just becasue it is abilable and well documented we have so much detail? What we know should be included, what we don't - too bad. I think maybe we should provide the same amount of detail for each period. If there is breif early history, then the modern history on this page should also be breif, not elongated. If the modern period is very detailed, we should strive to provide detail for earlier periods too. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani said: "We have, for the 'tiny minority' more details for certain periods than for the large Arab majority" and that this "troubles the page". Also "this page is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about Hebron the city, its culture and institutions". But look: This is also the situation in the modern part: 1967-1995 has more details for the 500 settlers, than the thousands of arabs, i.e the "minority" is given most room (is this also "troubling"?). Also, 1997-2012 has more about persecution of 30,000 arabs (16% of the town) than about the majority rest of H1 (130,000), again, delaing mainly with "minority". In 1500s, Jews were 16% of taxable inhabitants, and you complain it gets "more detail". Yet, so much detail is devoted to settlers/30,000 arabs in modern period - i.e the parellel rule bit deals only with the "tiny minority" -18% of the town - why is this not a problem? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You focus on a policy at a time, while ignoring how encyclopedias, like this, are written, in terms of several leading policy guidelines. One writes articles optimally from RS which have studied this violent stand-off in great detail,(the 'bias' is in the RS) while we have few reliable books on things which should interest the page. The modern settler presence, though small, has made a huge impact on Hebronite life. The old yishuv had no impact at all on Hebron or its general institutional culture. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt there are not enough books about other things about Hebron. Are you saying we only have books about the conflcit for the 30 years of israeli rule that we have to dedicate 100% to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the "israeli rule" section? (that was until I added 12% about the arab elections and mayor). I think it was added by people who wanted us to think Hebron is only about Israeli occupation, nothing else. How sad. First you complain that Jews were the minority, so we should not have so much about them. Then the problem is they made no impact, so we should ignore them too. It seems you will always have an answer! Look: This is not only about adding things which have made an impact. It is about things of interest, and though you may feel it is boring, I find it of great interest that the Jews in 1774 were rounded up and held in fear of their lives for 24hrs and then had 10 boys selected to be killed as retribution, and who were saved at the last monment, and were impoverished as a result and probably left the town soon after. The harrasement that casused a tiny minority of Arab shops in hebron to close in 2012 is just as significant as the impact harassment made to 18th century Jews. I know we dont have colour photos to prove it or websites devoted to the subject - but it happened, and we should not be trying to stifle it. Tell me, did Mr Ezra really make such an impact on the town during "british rule" that you devote 14% (prev. 18%) of the paragrpah just about him? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are substantial Arab histories of the city, and we use none. That is the single great failing of this article. It awaits someone who can edit directly from these neglected but indispensable historical works on the city. I don't 'complain' Jews were in the minority. I said, historically, the city has deep symbolic importance in Jewish tradition, but has hardly, unlike Jerusalem, anything to bear witness to that. It has, over time, rarely had any notable Jewish imprint on its landscape. The Jewish community from medieval to recent times was, according to all traveller reports, chronically impoverished, and not because of Turkish extortions alone. Most were small pious groups either settling to spend their last years there, or to practice their faith in a holy city. They lived on handouts. Elliott Horowitz at Bar-Ilan reviews Jewish historiography argues that it developed a strong penchant for digging up details of prior woes in order to 'contextualize' as unfortunate but 'understandable' any poor behaviour by them later (614 at Jerusalem etc). His colleague Ariel Toaff has a similar line. Your point seems to be, 'sure, things are tough for Arabs (see the post-1967 section) but they had it coming. We were treated brutally in 1773/5 and 1929. I don't think one should approach encyclopedic articles that way. Any city's history, if written that way, would be markedly different. At London we would register the massacres under Richard Lionheart, at Paris the Dreyfus affair, at York we have the 1190 massacre, but nothing else. The list could be exapanded to whatever city Jews, or any other minority, dwelt in. Get the point?Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you have twice previously compared this page to Jerusalem. Yet despite all the human rights violation and terrible conditions faced by arabs in East Jerusalem in some quarters, ie. Silwan, there is nothing about this anywhere there. Why so much here then?

You did not answer why you agree to give so much space to Ezra and the rabbis either. And why are you happy to promote use of Arab histories which have not been mentioned in secondary sources?

I would also not compare capital cities to the village that Hebron was at the time. And provincial European towns should have a healthy helping of their minority Jewish presence, be it put the Christian in a bad light or not.

The medieval Arabs also did not leave a notable imprint on its landscape? Or did they - what was it? That they instituted the table of Abraham and an edict preventing non-Muslims from the cave? The Islamic, Crusader and Ayyubid and Mamluk rule sections are mainly consisting of what empire was in control of the whole of Palestine. Very little about the town itself. Instead we have Islamic fairy tales presented as fact, that the Prophet “alighted” in Hebron during his night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem. Guess what: his shoe fell off and someone put it in a mosque. (Muhammed did not visit Hebron, neither did his shoe ever make it there.) Baybars-hamimi (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) Jerusalem is under one law, that of the Israeli majority. Israel proclaims it 'undividied'. Israel has, on the other hand, split Hebron, a Palestinian city under military occupation in good part, subject to military courts. That has profoundly affected the nature of the city over the past 40 years, that half a thousand settlers determine the way over 200,000 Palestinians live. It is, as Jerusalem is not, deeply conflicted as never before, and that is what so many books study, and so many newspapers regularly report on.

(b)Why not Ezra? He was and remains an extraordinary Hebronite, and deserves a wiki biography. He defied advice and stuck to his guns, and survived unharmed after a shocking massacre.

(c)Johann Büssow's,Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem, 1872-1908, mentions that there are excellent modern histories of Hebron by Arab scholars. I take his word for it. They would be excellent sources, but we cannot access them yet.

(d)I don't know why you find mention of the traditional story of Mohammad's flight and stopover comical because untrue and full of curious details. Neither Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Sarah, Rebecca, Joseph, Ruth or their relatives visited Hebron because they are late fictions passed off as history, just as Oedipus never visited Colonus, or Medea Corinth, or Achilles Troy. Virtually everything connected with traditions of origin all over Palestine (and the rest of the world), Jewish, Christian and Islamic) is not historical but fabulatory, theological. Most of the myths as we have them are Jewish or rather Judean-Babylonian retellings of a very complex multitribal set of Semitic traditions. Like Greek dramas, they're fascinating as literature, but no guide to history except through the hermeneutics of indirection provided by the clues we gather from the allusions and language and customs. It's one of the follies of our eurocentric bible-fixated world that we allow these legends to be registered in a narrative voice that pretends they're historical. Like writing the history of Germany in terms of the Nibelungenlied, or of early England through Beowulf and the Arthurian cycle, or of Greece through the Iliad. It's fair to register the corresponding Islamic legends. I'm a pagan, and have no horse in this weird race.Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1775 Hebron Blood Libel - or not?

It Arab attitudes to Israel, by Yehoshafat Harkabi - 1974 - Page 270, says "Such a libel in Jerusalem and Hebron is described by Bezalel Landau ("The Blood Libel in Jewish History," Mahanayim. No. 80)." but he makes a point that it was not an accusation that they used the blood for ritual. Nevertheless, I looked in B landau in the hebrew orig. [2] and he does use "blood libel":

עלילת דם אירעה לפני כ- 200 שנה גם בחברון, ובאיגרת משנת תקל"ה מסופר על עלילת דם לכל פרטיה ודקדוקיה:

"המוסלמים העלילו על תושבי חברון היהודים, שהם אשמים בהריגת בנו של השייח הגדול מלך הארץ, והטמנתו בבור שופכים. השייח הסגיר את כל היהודים במקום אחד, טף ונשים לנקום נקם - - - ונשארנו סגורים כ"ד שעות - - - ונגמר הדין כי השייח יבחר לו עשרה נפשות מישראל, ויטביעם במקום אשר נמצא בנו - - - ותיכף בא השייח ויבחר לו עשרה בחורים מבחר הצאן לעשות בהם משפט כתוב", ורק בחסדי ה' ניצלו מידו. --Baybars-hamimi (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Harkabi's not enough. The use of that kind of polemical language is very slipshod in a certain vein of general literature. I have a lot of good books on blood libel, and this doesn't fit the description of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC) (hurrah. I can sign this page!)

Why is Harkabi not enough? Your private opinion about the language he's using notwithstanding, of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have found some more, hopefully acceptable sources:

"When the son of a local sheikh mysteriously disappeared in 1773, Hebron Jews were slandered by a blood libel that falsely accused them of murdering him." (Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel - Page 45, Jerold S. Auerbach - 2009)

"Various prohibitions, the ban on bachelors under sixty years of age from settling in Jerusalem, the continual wars in the forties and in the seventies, and the libel in Hebron in 1773 also caused many people to leave the country" (The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the ... - Page 32, Y. Barnay – 1992)

"There was no improvement during the 18th century, which was marked by disease, decrees of expulsion, a blood libel, and upheavals during the rebellion of Ali Bey" (Encyclopaedia Judaica - Volume 8 - Page 747 Fred Skolnik, Michael Berenbaum - 2007)

Hopegully these sources will allow us to use the term and keep mention of this unfortunate event in the article. We may have to change the date from 1775 to 1773, though. I looked at Blood libel and it says that the early blood libels did not include the thing that they drained the blood to use for passover bread - that was only later and is on egyptain TV a few years ago. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A blood libel is not a libel, or false accusation. A blood libel occurs when Jews are accused of killing for ritual purposes, namely to obtain blood that is then putatively used for some magico-religious end. If all false accusations against Jews concerning murder are 'blood libels' the term loses its specific gravity. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain in terms of wikipedia policy why you think the above two sources can't be used, not in terms of your private opinion. You don't accept that kind of stuff from other people so should stop doing so yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When sources, none of them particularly good on an obscure historical event, use a term rhetorically for a POV effect, and violate the nature meaning of a term (see Blood libel) in order to give an unhistorical and political slant to an article, then best practice and commonsense means you avoid it. None of the sources cited give any evidence that the extortion for the murder involved a charge that the Jews of Hebron used the blood of the murdered man for ritual purposes. Tell me where wikipedia condones the incorrect and slanted use of passionate language as conformable to the criteria of WP:NPOV? A huge fuss was made at Jerusalem over the meaning of the word "capital" to defend its use there as defined in a dictionary, irrespective of POV. You supported that, I think. The dictionary meaning was sufficient. Here, you appear to think I must justify in terms of policy my refusal to accept a solecistic use of the word 'blood libel'. Some coherence.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please also note the conflict in dates in the sources, 1773 (Auerbach, Barnay, etc.) or 1775 (Ben-Gurion, Louis Finkelstein)? We're asked to accept sources for a blood libel in Hebron, when the sources cannot even get such a basic thing as the date correct, left alone the correct meaning of the word? ('We may have to change the date from 1775 to 1773, though.')

I looked at Blood libel and it says that the early blood libels did not include the thing that they drained the blood to use for passover bread - that was only later and is on egyptain TV a few years ago.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you wish to know about blood libels and their historical depth, read Ariel Toaff. He's a better source than Egyptian tv.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You regularly accuse people of "blogging" or stating their private opinion when they make arguments like you did above. You're the last person to talk about lack of coherence.

Is Jerold S. Auerbach a reliable source for the history of the Jews in Hebron? Is Encyclopaedia Judaica? Don't tell me that you personally think they're using the wrong term because I could not possibly care less. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a problem with me. Every time you address my remarks, you can't avoid making personal comments on what you perceive to be my manner or defects. If the tick continues, seek help somewhere. It's in patent violation of wiki protocols. Otherwise drop it and stick to the point.

Auerbach's that accurate that he even says the British Mandatory authorities were Muslims, without realizing the implications of one of many stupid generalizations he makes in a field he has no sure grip on, other than identitarian political defensiveness over Hebron and contempt for Arabs.

I asked two questions. Blood libel is used in these several sources loosely, and not in the proper sense. The sources are in conflict over the date. You can use no source until you establish which date is the correct one. If you don't 'care less' about getting details right, then consider going somewhere else, rather than trying to supervise an encyclopedia committed to accuracy, or trying tediously to annoy people.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this, Jerold S. Auerbach is Professor Emeritus of History at Wellesley College. Mr. Auerbach taught courses on the United States in the twentieth century, the history of freedom of speech, and the history of Israel. His book about the history of the Jews in Hebron was published by Rowman & Littlefield, which among other things publishes professional and scholarly books throughout the humanities and social sciences.

He is a reliable source according to wikipedia standards. Your friend Nableezy recently taught me that if a reliable source says something that might not be 100% accurate, and no reliable source contradicts it, it can go in articles. The guys at RS/N concurred. I, as usual, follow Nableezy's lead on how the rules work. So you can stop telling me why you personally think Auerbach is wrong as that's completely irrelevant and find a reliable source that explicitly contradicts him.

That two sources conflict about the date does not disqualify both. We put both possible dates in the article. That's what you'd have insisted we do if we were talking about information you liked, and that's what we should do here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to follow the venerable Nableezy's lead, you may want to consider whether two sentences in a 223 page book merits the weight the two sentences currently given in this relatively, compared to the book on one aspect of Hebron's history, short article. Would you care for some direction? Hell, a page earlier an entire paragraph is devoted to the friendship between a rabbi and a pastor. Nishidani, I suggest taking this to WP:NPOV/N and getting outside input on whether or not this merits even a mention here. Does a throw away reference to a blood libel in a 200+ page book merit two sentences in this article? I dont think so. nableezy - 19:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if something is mentioned only once in a large book it shouldn't be included? That's interesting, I can work with that. Could you be a bit more specific though? I wouldn't want to err while I apply this rule to some other stuff. You have noticed that more than one RS mentions this, right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that this is a top-level article and should be treated as such with the less notable events being moved to more specific articles. I think this could go in any number of articles on the basis of that mention in a large book. But this article? Not so much. If many sources that discuss the history of Hebron discuss this issue then that would support the idea that it should be noted in our history of Hebron. But as far as I can tell that isnt true. Right now, this off-hand mention gets as much detail as the murder of 29 worshiping Muslims. You really think that is right? nableezy - 20:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense if there was a History of Hebron article. But there isn't. Which of the any number of more specific articles do you think this would belong in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Make that article. Simple enough. I didnt say that the articles this would fit in, in my view, currently exists, now did I? nableezy - 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC) nableezy - 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You can do better than that. Once again, this time with feeling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The so-called reliable sources contradict themselves on the date. The fact that Jews were extorted by the use of slander is all that needs noting.

Look. The amount of historical, academic documentation on Israeli violence in Hebron is a thousand times more detailed in incident and event than what a trawling in the historical literature for a thousand years of the minute Jewish settlement there. I've exercised great restraint in not' making a havoc of the page by exploiting what I know to make this some gambit in the I/P area. All I see recently is misery-stacking, scraping the barrel. I recently saw an edit making it a terrorist central for suicide. Well I have several sources documenting that a decade earlier it was the major centre for Jewish West Bank terrorism with Kach INC foundational leaders grounded there. I don't put that in. It's called sober neutral judgement that focuses on the history of a town, amd does not do research to scrap up ammo for the ideological battles that two in every three sources throw our way.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The sections for Israeli rule and Palestinian rule, that cover about 45 years, focus mainly on the hardship Palestinians suffer due to the settlers, and combined are almost the same size as the Ottoman rule section, which covers around 450 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the dispute among the dates arises from the conversion of the Hebrew year into the secular date. The Hebrew year given in many Hebrew sources is תקל'ה which overlaps 1774/1775. The month may not still exist, so we don’t know which corresponding year it is in. But this date itself may be inaccurate as it may have been gotten from a letter appealing for help which apparently was written a year or a few months after the occurrence, hence some sources backdate it to 1773. That’s my OR. I think Nishidani’s has a good argument and we should think about accepting his/er OR here. Maybe we should indeed ignore these sources which are either “polemical language is very slipshod in a certain vein of general literature”, or “none of them particularly good on an obscure historical event” or inaccurate and stupid. We have to use our common sense! If nowadays the meaning means to kill the child to use his blood for passover bread or to mix into sacremental wine, that seems not to have been the case in 1773/4/5, when they were accused of just kiling him for fun and tossed his body into the common cesspit. I think they may have used the term beacuase his was a child. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair input. Check the origin of the phrase 'blood libel' (b) The practices attributed to Jews (and Christians in the early Roman empire), and constituting blood libel, are ancient and in medieval times the accusation was made frequently against Ashkenazi Jews. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because

"The amount of historical, academic documentation on Israeli violence in Hebron is a thousand times more detailed in incident and event than what a trawling in the historical literature for a thousand years of the minute Jewish settlement there."

does not mean we should just ignore violence of yesteryear in Hebron. It would be very wrong. We should try and include as much as is necessary, especially because it is not as well documented. In my opinion, the article only includes bits about the settlemtns and its problems in the bit for the modern history! So we ignore the other 80% of the town, and devote the modern history section to the settlers only? What is going on here?! From Israeli rule to I-P rule, there is no history besides the jewish settlers???!! This is silly. I cant believe it has been so for so long! I think the whole situation should be summed up in a few sentanecs, not paragraphs. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet one rarely mentioned instance of a "libel" merits multiple sentences? Come off it. nableezy - 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We mention it because it seems a significant occurance. And I feel we have to, because just like everyday there is settler violence, and we have so much to represent that, every day in history there was similar harassment against Jews, so we can add a little here and there to give the picture. I guess we could just say "and the (blood) libel in 1774", but why not spend a few more words to detail it more? Thats what Nishidani did with Mr Ezra say how well he merged in "with his friends!" (actuall he was a haganah spy) and for wanting to provide the names of the three rabbis involved in the Hebron Yeshiva. Why do they deserve mention on a page about a town where the Jews were minute %age and where they headed but just one institution of that community? I thought at first that was overdoing it a bit, but it seems not? I have read the original letter that was sent abroad for help and it seems this accusation was a significant event, hence why Barnay lists as one of the main reasons that caused Jews to leave the country, and we have enough already here about the ghost town and the Arabs just leaving settler area. That is significant, why not this? I cant beleive this caused so much feedback here. If this is the case with everything I add, I may just give up now. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't give up. That's exactly what they want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

History often tells us little. And when we have little to go by, we do not seize on a partisan spin of an obscure event in order to write a lachrymose account (Salon Wittmayer Baron's description of how much Jerwish history used to be written, as a tale of victims. The best scholarship in Israel is more confident, and doesn't churn the whingeing quern). As to 1773/5, we have as yet no good secondary source, by which one understands, a scholar who has reviewed the primary evidence (Auerbach hasn't apparently) and made his informed call on the event. We simply have a meme, spun as 1773 or 1775, repeated in synthetic sources that, on the face of it, spin an incident involving extortion in terms of the popular blood libel label used loosely in polemical histories. Blood libels characteristically inflame a population and lead to revenge killings and the destruction of property, another thing (so far) unattested. I see you have your local sources in the Hebronite community from your remarks about Ezra. If you buy my argument about undue, then the whole article collapses because, aside from an exiguous presence, they have virtually no historical presence in the city from some centuries BCE down to modern times. I've done my best to attest to that presence, but in any neutral gaze, the case you are making is full of (a) just so fairy tales from Babylonia weaving folk stories as if they were history (there are none of the Biblical 'patriarchs' in the tomb) (b) some heretics from Cairo (the Karaites) and then a low flux of people from the 16th century. The city has been Pagan, Roman, Byzantine and Arab for most of its history. Despite that, we bend the rules to document the Jewish presence because of its mythical value in Jewish traditions. But if your idea is one of rewriting this 'history' as one of terror, then you are not being encyclopedic, but rather trying to give the slant friends in Hebron give to the place.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not this “rewriting” Hebron’s Jewish history as one of terror – for indeed it was just that, a history of miserable existence under unbearable Arab and Turkish yoke – why else do you think they seemingly had “virtually no historical presence in the city from some centuries BCE down to modern times” – it is because they were persecuted and not tolerated there:

”The old rabbi talked to me how he had left his country in Europe many years before, and come with his wife and children to lay their home in the Holy Land. He was now eighty years old; and for 30 years, he said, he had lived with the sword suspended over his head; had been reviled, buffeted, and spit upon; and though sometimes enjoying a respite from persecution, he never knew at what moment the bloodhounds might not be let loose upon him; that, since the country had been wrested from the Sultan by the Pacha of Egypt, they had been comparatively safe and tranquil; though some idea may be formed of this comparative security from the fact that during the revolution two years before, Ibrahim Pacha, after having been pent up several months in Jerusalem, burst out like a roaring lion, the first place upon which his wrath descended was the unhappy Hebron; and while their guilty brethren were sometimes spared, the unhappy Jews, never offending, but always suffering, received full weight of Arab vengeance. Their houses were ransacked and plundered: their gold and silver, and all things valuable, carried away, and their wives and daughters violated before their eyes by a brutal soldiery.” (1853)

Not even the above event deserved a link according to you: ([3]) when it was clear the uninvolved Jews were earmarked for specific attack by government forces and it was not merely an "obscure event". There is no good reason whatsoever to whitewash such information in this article, be Jews a minority, be they of no general significance, be they lachrymose in nature. That you feel we have to include it as a favour is rather offensive. Should I complain about how the recent history section deals solely with the lachrymose nature of the Palestinian lives in H2? Does nothing else happen in Hebron beside settlers chucking rubbish onto netting? I can’t understand why it is of great importance that we note a rather “obscure” fact that on one Purim, some children dressed as a terrorist? I am sure tens of children dress as terrorist in Hams parades in the city, Has any scholar made an informed call on this specific phenomena of settler kids dressing as a terrorist? Talk about partisan spin……. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, so, as I said, you have a grievance and a theory, and you are editing to put that over. A Hebron Jewish folk tale says that the community, importuned by Jerusalem emissaries to give a substantial sum of money for the mikvah of redeeming captives, turned them away, and in punishment were subject to 10 times the sum in extortionate demands from the local pasha.If outsiders; Jews or Turks, are going to tax you harshly, provide for your own.

Any poor community or minority in any pre-20th century city would have similar tales to tell. The Arab contemporaries would weep in telling you of the devastations the same Ibrahim Pasha caused in decimating 500 of the 700 Arab men of Hebron he enrolled as soldiers. What you are doing is selective ethnic reading of history - which historians don't do if they're worth their salt - looking for what happened to Jews, insouciant to the social context where anyone else may have suffered, as did the Christians of Palestine under the same Jezzar Pasha, an Ottoman Bosnian by the way, not an Arab, who afflicted the Jewish community in Hebron in the period under discussion. The Christians suffered as extensively as anyone else, but I would oppose writing articles to make that the cynosure of all curious people with an eye to the history of Palestine.

You're dead wrong about Purim, which celebrates a double story of attempted and successful genocide. Have you forgotten the 1986 march to Beit Romano where the settlers hung an effigy of Haman, represented as an Arab. Have you forgotten 2000/1 and the Adloyada parade? The Purim cult there, which influenced Goldstein, is alive and kicking just as is the insidious meme by rabbinical figures associating the Arabs with Amalek, over which there is a certain halakhic duty. You want sources for all this. I've held off, but if you really like to exchange crap, I could start a tit-for-tat war (which of course I won't) by sourcing in for starters: 'The settlers in Kiryat Arba Hebron are among the most militant and violent of the Israelis living in the territories.' (Shalom Goldman,Zeal for Zion: Christians, Jews, & the Idea of the Promised Land, UNC Press ‎2010 p.285) I have about 200 hundred pages of stuff like that gathered over 5 years, all studiously kept out of this article.It's a simple game of chess to play, you know.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop blogging. Your opinions on Jewish customs are not helping your argument or enhancing your reputation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, as on many other pages, if you can't be constructive, or bother to actually read books and contribute to article construction, go somewhere else. Just kibitzing, as you mostly do wherever we cross paths, is sheer gloating laziness. Baybars is discursive and raises many points, and you say nothing. I reply, and you cut in to remonstrate. What you call 'my' opinions are merely reminders to an editor of what a large no. of RS say. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll go where I please and write what I please and as long as you keep trying to downplay every wrong done to Jews while overplaying every wrong done by a Jew, I'll be there. Baybars doesn't regularly tell people to "stop blogging" when they give their opinion on something tangentially related to an article. You do. A bit less hypocrisy wouldn't hurt you. Now you write that Purim is a celebration of genocide and think that will go unanswered?

You say "blood libel" is being used "loosely, and not in the proper sense" and shouldn't be used despite being used in reliable sources. Being "used loosely" didn't stop you from not only using the word "lynch" all over an article, you insisted it belongs in the lead. What's the difference here other than what I pointed out in the first sentence of this post?

Do you have any policy based objection to this being included? Nableezy's somewhat amusing attempt to claim UNDUE seems to have fizzled out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no it hasnt. The idea that one line in a couple of books merits two sentences in an article where Mr Goldtein's handy-work is given one is asinine. nableezy - 00:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In any city in the world in the 21st century where there is conflict, the residents suffer terribly - why need we mention any tales of their persecution? It’s expected! Yet I have no grievance that it is indeed mentioned, just I am rather intrigued how it can be that four centuries of intolerance against Hebron’s minority community is to be covered by four words in the whole article: “strong tradition of hostility.” While on the other hand, Hebron has nothing to say for itself over the last four decades, except to record the influx of 500 settlers and the resulting violence. This is not acceptable. Will you be able to come up with a further reason as to why the tribulations of Hebron’s Ottoman Jews must not be mentioned besides for: “They are a tiny minority!”- ignore them. “They had no impact!” - ignore them. “There is thousand times more academic documentation on current history!” - ignore them. “This is pure misery-stacking and scraping the barrel!” - ignore them. “Everyone else suffered too!” - ignore them?

You defend the mention of a particular instance of how a few children one year dressed as Goldstein by using sources which document the general extremist mentality of the settlers. But the rare phenomena of dressing as mass-murders within this conflict itself, I presume, has not been subject to a scholarly thesis, yet you are happy to include it. What I want to know is, although there are sources which document the intolerant society in which Ottoman Jews lived, we cannot single out one instance of how this manifested itself, seemingly because there are no secondary sources which have studied the precise event?

Pasha may have killed 500 Arab men of Hebron during their armed rebellion against him, but what else should he do? Thrown olive branches? The brutal killing of uninvolved civilians (as happened to the Jews in 1834) is always more noteworthy. Nevertheless, if it is as you say, that “The Arab contemporaries would weep in telling you of the devastations the same Ibrahim Pasha caused“, I think we should maybe delete that bit as we do not seize on an obscure event in order to write a lachrymose account. But this is what you did at Ashkelon by adding that the Israelis blew up a mosque and at Al-Lubban ash-Sharqiya where you added a whole para. for one terror insident.

You claim Purim celebrates successful genocide. Strange coming from you who said “I don't trust medieval or ancient sources when they talk of numbers killed” and that such things are “fairy tales from Babylonia“! I guess you believe them when you want to. I would hope that those who celebrate Purim celebrate deliverance, not the way in which it was wrought. Genocide is anyhow the wrong word, unless you make the same mistake Julius Streicher made in 1938. 500 in each country is not genocide. Neither were they all Persians. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

'Four centuries of intolerance against Hebron’s minority community'. Where's your source?

But this is what you did at Ashkelon by adding that the Israelis blew up a mosque and at Al-Lubban ash-Sharqiya where you added a whole para. for one terror insident.

Good grief. Has the Hebron yeshiva set up a Nishidani study section? I'd forgotten about that Ashkelon edit. Fascinating.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. How do you know so many such good words? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You claim Purim celebrates successful genocide.

Now you write that Purim is a celebration of genocide and think that will go unanswered?

None of you read the Bible, I gather. Esther 9:16 speaks of 75,000 being killed in one day. Of course, like the story of the plot to kill the Jews, this is all pure moralizing legend, fabricated out of the pure cloth of myth, like almost all the foundational stories of the Bible. It's not my opinion that both the plot to wipe out the Jews, and the Jewish murder of 75,000 people in one day in retaliation, constitute genocide (though mythic). See Gideon Ofrat, The Jewish Derrida Syracuse University Press, 2001 p.79, to name one of a dozen sources. Like all good scholars (and editors) these people don't calculate cui bono when they think or write. I note neither of you contests the evidence that the Jewish Hebronite community has often behaved in such a way that observers deduce they think of the Palestinian majority as the Book of Esther thought of Haman, and certain halakhic traditions consider the Amalekites.

You say "blood libel" is being used "loosely, and not in the proper sense" and shouldn't be used despite being used in reliable sources. Being "used loosely" didn't stop you from not only using the word "lynch" all over an article, you insisted it belongs in the lead.

The word 'lynch' was used in sources used to compile the Zion Square assault. It was used in the hebrew press reporting the incident in the sense that loanword is customarily employed in modern Hebrew (and Japanese, and several other languages I can think of) for mob violence leading to death (see 2000 Ramallah lynching). I never 'used the word "lynch" all over an article'. My excuse for an occasional slip is old age (I didn't slip there though). What's your excuse for screwing up on this?Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The only one screwing up here is you, digging your hole deeper and deeper. But that's ok, you keep on saying stuff like Purim is a celebration of genocide (I guess that's like celebrating the Allied victory in WWII is a celebration of the bombing of Dresden), demanding exact accuracy when it suits you but using terms loosely when it doesn't, and telling editors you identify as Jewish that they should focus on articles relating to Jews (as some sort of reflexive "get back to the ghetto"). At some point I should start keeping records of this crap.

Now, do you have any policy based objection to this term, which is sourced to multiple RS? Other than your personal opinion, which, in case I have not been clear, is not worth much? If not, baybars should go ahead and put it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You misrepresented my editing history. That is screwing up. Your attempts to spin my prose and ignore what scholars say, leaves me yawning. The Allied victory in WW11 is a real event. The 'events' of Purim, much of the Bible, are just so stories. The just-so story of the Book of Esther has 75,000 people murdered in a single day by Jews, a tall story concocted to stir a national spirit of the kind all societies entertain on the basis of an imaginary past. That book is recited at Purim and it had at least in Hebron one catastrophic effect: 'the terrible Purim celebration of 1994, at the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron, where Baruch Goldstein reenacted upon the bodies of praying Muslims the revenge of the Jews of Persia upon their enemies.' (Paul Steinberg,Celebrating the Jewish Year: The Fall Holidays: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Jewish Publication Society, 2007 p.109). The man didn't appear to understand that no such event ever took place, that Hebron wasn't an incipient Auschwitz, and his celebration with a machine-gun was modelled on a fairy tale about a menace that never existed. Most festivals of that kind are intensely irrational and mythic.

The sources are in conflict about the date. The use of the word does not fit the know facts of the extortion. As such it is not encyclopedic to repeat a meme in sources that are of indifferent quality. As is often the case (al-Husayni page), numerous middling sources repeat memes that contradict what is known or play fast and loose with language, and when this occurs, one asks for quality sources by historians who specialize in the contested issue. Nishidani (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apropos coherence, you write:

Now, do you have any policy based objection to this term, which is sourced to multiple RS? Other than your personal opinion, which, in case I have not been clear, is not worth much? If not, baybars should go ahead and put it in the article

I.e. you haven't even noticed that he put it in there days ago, and was reverted back I think when removed. In normal wiki practice (you at Zion Square assault did it) anything contested or controversial is removed, until a consensus is secured on the talk page. No adequate explanation has been forthcoming as to why an event that does not fit the description of a blood libel, should be described here as a blood libel. Were this sort of loose language to prevail, I expect some genius to eventually write that the Purim story is of course a 'blood libel' because it attributes to Jews a series of murders they never committed.Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The more than adequate explanation is that that's the term several RS use for this event. That was good enough when you wanted to use "lynch", but apparently is not good enough here. I wonder why. Reminds me of the time you tried to use Martin Gilbert in the 1929 Hebron massacre article to lowball the number of Jews murdered but then said he's not good on the history of the Middle East when he said something you didn't like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not RS for this. They are repeating a meme. You're wrong about 'lynch'. It was repeatedly used in the Hebrew press, Goodman removed it as too strong and inappropriate. I didn't press the point. Goodman's argument would apply here. It's a rhetorical term known for being flung about wildly, and should be used with its precise meaning. Your memory is failing you on Martin Gilbert also. Go and check the records, because you are not a reliable source when it comes to my editing behaviour. Gilbert is not reliable on 1929, and on many other incidents. He's very good on Churchill, but too much of an involved party to be useful on details, which in the Hebron case he got by referring the report in the Jerusalem Post the day after the slaughter. I have a huge file on this, with the names of every victim. So stop fucking around misrepresenting me as 'lowballing' Jewish deaths, or that suggesting your vocation on wikipedia is to control some lunatic named Nishidani from underplaying the history of Jewish suffering.Nishidani (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Here's you lowballing the number.

Here's you explaining you got it from Gilbert, who you emphasize is Jewish for some reason. You continued to edit war this number into the article at least 3 more times.

Here's you telling everyone once again that not only is Gilbert Jewish, but that he's "one of the foremost contemporary historians", and other stuff telling us what a lovely source he is for information you like.

Here we have "top historian" and "Jewish" again.

Here in the same conversation you tell us that "Gilbert is one of the foremost historians of modern history, neither you nor I can question his credentials."

And here you explain that "wiki edit challenges are not supposed to question the reliability of a reliable source" (emphasis in the original).

Here's the full discussion that everyone can feel free to pursue at their leisure.

So how about you stop accusing everyone else of incoherence, and stop playing the poor victim because nobody's buying it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This only suggests to me that you are extremely lazy, and why we differ. I spend most of my day reading sources, not studiously tracking people to prove some whimsical thesis that they are up to no good, and have it in for some ethnic group. You appear to waste a huge amount of time gathering spurious ammo to make a case against me by selective citation of diffs over several years. An obsession shared by a few others here. Every diff you use as evidence, and your accompanying proposition (I lowball Jewish deaths) breaks down immediately on examination of the relevant talk page. Had you done some elementary homework, that would have been obvious. No, too much trouble. You prefer building a Potemkin village to conjure up a flimsy impression to those drifting by.

Jackabou was highballing Jewish deaths from direct 'slaughter' using poor sources, and was not amenable to any evidence that conflicting with his mechanical assertion. I adduced Gilbert to show that (a) on the day immediately after the massacre 58 victims were reliably reported buried. One died that same day, making the reported 59. In the subsequent days and weeks, a further 8 died, of wounds or as a consequence of heart attacks etc. I used this for one simple reason. You cannot open a page saying 67 people were 'slaughtered' when the historical record says several died of shock, or heart attacks. But POV-warriors edit selectively in order to influence the reader, and if facts must be trampled, or complications ignored, so be it. Here is the relevant talk page proof that I was not lowballing anything, but sticking to what a variety of sources documented. Since you appear to be just relying on some screw-Nishidani-archive for tell-tale diffs, without troubling to read for context, which contradicts you dopey inference, I'll copy them here for you.

The whole ugly dispute could be resolved amicably by saying 59 were butchered on the day, and a further 8 died as a consequence of wounds or shock in the following weeks, making for 67 fatalities. I doubt it will, of course. Nishidani 09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent my position. From the outset I cited both figures, giving precise references in books, by authoritative figures. I then declared (see above) I don't know which figure is correct. Nishidani 08:36, 25 July 2007

Unlike yourself, I have no conviction either way about the figures: 59,65,67, they are fluid in the serious literature. From the outset you have challenged any attempt to alter the highest figure given in para 1,as though anything lower would detract from the tragedy. I have simply shown that reputable historical sources vary. You don't like even citing this known variation on the page. All this nonsensical waste of time would have been avoided if you simply allowed that sources differ, from 59 to 67. Since what we are doing is provisory, it makes sense to document in full view, a minor difficulty, so that someone can then see it, and clarify it. Your editorial approach only hides from view the problem. Nishidani 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually 58 were buried in a common grave in Hebron directly after the massacre. A week later, 5 more had died, bringing the number to 63. Where the two who died of heart attacks from shock fit into the various statistics given by reliable sources (from 58,59,63,65,67) is not clear. Note I do not interfere with the text. I prefer to seek an understanding here, before proceeding to textual revision Nishidani 17:53, 25 July 2007

I am not supporting Martin Gilbert's figure of 59, which clearly does not cover the overall number of victims. I have no intention to manipulate figures. I am saying that the several figures represent different calculations over time, and different contemporary reports. The text uses the word massacre and 'murdered' of 67, and the overwhelming percentage of the 67 were massacred and murdered. But when one uses these words of some people known to have died of shock at the horror they witnessed, one misrepresents. Hannah Slonim was not massacred or murdered: she died of a heart attack, as did Noit Geva's relative. Again, Zeide Bernzweig's testimony speaks of 63 holy martyrs over a week after the massacre. In short, in the Hebron massacre of 1929, there were 67 victims, the vast majority were murdered on the day or died of wounds shortly afterwards: a handful died as a consequence of the shock sustained by the horror they witnessed. Nishidani 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So, once more, you've wasting your own time with an irrelevant theory about the occult motives and putative fixations of one Nishidani. I don't, unlike many here, edit to protect a state, or promote one, with a trigger finger objection to any edit that might look bad for a case. I look at quality and context, which is something that is incomprehensible to POV warriors.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all very nice, except for the fact that it's not what happened. It said 67 were "murdered", not "slaughtered" like you claim. It's in the first diff. You changed it to 59, as if if someone attacks a person with a machete and the victim dies a few days later he wasn't murdered.

You also used Gilbert, continually emphasizing his Jewishness. The same Gilbert you reject when other people use.

As for who "has it in for an ethnic group", there's a tool that shows every page an editor has edited. Shall I post a list of the pages concerning a specific group (I won't say "ethnic" since that'll just open the door for irrelevant nitpicking), concerning their history, genetics and customs, and in which direction your edits usually fall? I'm aware of at least 15 such pages just from articles I edit myself. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 50. And I'm not talking about stuff directly related to a conflict in which you don't edit "to protect a state, or promote one". That you call others POV warriors is hilarious.

By the way, I saw that exchange on the article talk page a while ago, where unsurprisingly you were as usual editing according to your tendency, and remembered it. It took me exactly 5 minutes to collect the diffs. It's really not that difficult. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, yawn. Waste more time. Keep it up. I will ignore you. When Isee the monicker NMMGG I can'tr help thinking of the figure of Widmerpool, wearing a deerstalker, crossed with Mr Bean mannerisms. Enjoy yourself. I couldn't give a fuck one way or the other when I come across a dedicated bore that wants to buttonhole one with his obsessions.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is getting rather out of hand. I have removed:

"A blood libel in 1775 saw the Jews of Hebron falsely accused of murdering the son of a local sheikh and throwing his corpse into a cesspit. They were forced to pay an enormous sum of money to avert catastrophe.^[1]^[2] ."

I think this is best. Nisidani, can you explain what you mean by a "meme"? Are you suggesteing the "libel" may not have actually occured? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's gentlemanly of you. However, I think the notice of that extortion is valid. All I challenge is the loose use of blood libel. I suggest that, provisorily, you restore the passage along the following lines: 'In 1773 or 1775, a large/substantial amount of money was extorted from the Jewish community, who paid up to avert a threatened catastrophe, after a false allegation was made accusing them of having murdered the son of a local sheikh and throwing his body into a cesspit.' That appears to be what all sources agree on. If we can get more details, rather than rhetorical phrasing, to clarify the exact circumstances, it would be very helpful. ps. See Meme.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think your willingness to compromise will be reciprocated, baybars, you'll soon learn that's not the case. If the situation were reversed Nishidani would claim we "cleave to RS". Just FYI. You'll new here. You'll learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your fixation on advising the man about deceitful plotters is repeating itself ('Don't give up. That's exactly what they want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)) Two violations of WP:AGF, all the more serious because you, as a regular, are actively advising an editor not to assume that those he may encounter may disagree with him in good faith. And you think I'm damaging to wikipedia? Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Baybars will learn, if he isn't driven off. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1170, Benjamin of Tudela and 1807, Ali Bey

I had removed the diary entry of Benjamin of Tudela as it deals with the sanctuary, not the town? This was re-added. Why is this necessary here? Also, why do we need to tel what Ali Bey found inside this site, which has it's own page? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the opening chapters of Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind (1949) which will clarify that an abstraction like 'town' refers to nothing more than the ensemble of its constituent parts, and thus the history of a town is very much the history of its constituent parts, i.e. the sanctuary is part and parcel of Hebron's history. Idem for Ali Bey. p.s. 'It's' is one thing, and not to be confused with its possessive pronominal homophone, 'its'.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But we dont need such a long and detailed account with its own paragraph which is rather out of place here. This building is only 1% of the town, and we dont need to give it so much room. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't give 99% of the town and its population much room. You added to the lead the name City of the Patriarchs, which means, essentially, the sanctuary, and not the city, where they dwell.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont see the relevance of that. What I mean to say is that the two descriptions in the isalmic era are very good beacuse it gives details of the town, but we dont need a separate description of the cave/mosque becasue this page is not about that. The site already is mentioned quite enough, and I am sure Mr Ryle will agee that we have do it justice. It is however surplus to include what Bejamin found there, dont you think? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [4][5] A large body of evidence [6][7] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiberian name

Why is the Tiberian name for Hebron any more relevant than, say, the Latin name?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinsmoke (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Suggestions for paring down the modern section

Please excerpt material which editors propose may be dispensed with here and transferred to the relevant subpage concerning the period following the settlement after 1968

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Nondescriptive use of term Palestinian

For the sake of consistency, please know that the Wiki entry on the subject of Tel Aviv, doesn't describe it as a "Jewish" or "Hebrew" or "Israeli" city. Why then is it factual to describe Hebron in such a way? So, by the term "Palestenian city" do you mean there are no other races, nationalities or peoples living in Hebron? Do you mean that the Palestenians are the political "might" of Hebron? I do see the citation you offer [2], but the transfer of that context to an encyclopedia is not as helpful as it should be. In any event, the statistics showing the per centage of population, are a better representation of facts. All-in-all, do the Palestinians or Israelis "own" Hebron? I doubt either do.69.108.103.227 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC re WP:BOLDTITLE - Bolding Al Khalil

Per WP:BOLDTITLE, "significant alternative titles are placed in bold". However, in this article the Palestinian name for the city is written as if it is a translation of Hebron. An illustration of its use in English by UNESCO is here [8]. I propose therefore that the first sentence of this article should read as follows:

Hebron (Hebrew: חֶבְרוֹן‎, Standard Hebrew: [Ḥevron] Error: {{Transliteration}}: unrecognized transliteration standard: $1 (help), Tiberian: Ḥeḇrôn ISO 259-3: Ḥebron) or Al Khalil (Arabic: الخليل^ⓘ al-Ḫalīl; Ottoman Turkish Halilürrahman) also known as City of the Patriarchs, is a Palestinian city located in the southern West Bank, 30 km (19 mi) south of Jerusalem.

Comments gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as on Talk:Jerusalem. This is not a commonly accepted or understood name in English and does not rise to the level of an alternative title. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose viz, it being a f*cking stupid idea. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support. It's an Arab city, holy to them and not known as Hebron in Islamic civilization. While this is an English encyclopedia, it is also global, and should be user-friendly to people of all faiths. So it is entitled to be bolded per WP:NPOV and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. It's not as if we were changing the title.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It is called Al-Khalil in Arabic. In English, the town is refered to as Hebron. Much like Falkland Islands has Malvinas in italics, not bold. Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong analogy. The Falklands are British territory in law. Hebron is an Arab city in an Arab state, Palestine, and is not held by a foreign power or in dispute. (b) Someone has bolded City of the Patriarchs, which no non-Jewish English speaker would recognize, so even there your principle is violated.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The analogy is correct according to what you wrote above. To the Argentinians, the Falkland’s are Argentinian territory and are known as Malvinas in their civilization. The only difference I suppose is that the people there speak English, not Spanish. But to be nice to them, should Malvinas not be bolded? I don’t see what on earth Law has to do with it. Do we bold Florence “Firenze” because according to the law, it is Italian territory? This is to do with alternative names, and we don’t just bold Malvinas because millions of people live a few miles away refer to it officially as that. I see what you mean by COP, and I have checked and agree it should be put as a nickname. Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Support bolding Al-Khalil, several hundred thousand google hits is more than enough to show that it is significant in English. "City of the Patriachs", however, is not a name at all, more like a nickname, so it should not be bolded. Zero^talk 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Support- per WP:BOLDTITLE and standard practice. Bolding "City of Patriarchs" and not "Al-Khalil" borders on the ridiculous. More a reflection of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS in the topic area than an objective reflection of RS. Dlv999 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Hello, I was invited by RFC bot. Having taken a look, I am going to say nay. Because first off this is the English Encyclopedia and we are providing background on the English names of the one and same city. As long as the Arabic name is mentioned in the opening lead, then I for one, see no reason for an undue emphasis by bolding. Hope that helps. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

False symmetry

As I have noted before there is a false symmetry being promoted on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hebron/Archive_5#Misleading_paragraph_removed

I don't believe there is a ban on Jews (as opposed to Israelis) from entering H1. I further believe that the ban on Israelis entering H1 is based on an Israeli military order and covers all areas under Palestinian rule, not just H1.

I could of course be an on wrong. Please feel free to add a paragraph, or a whole section, on this subject, but make sure you explain WHO is forbidding Jews from entering H1, on WHAT GROUNDS and make sure you provide reliable sources.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a blanket ban on Israelis entering Area A without a permit, imposed by Israel. I agree with your assessment. Zero^talk 22:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of pic discussed and reinserted by consensus in October 2012

This pic has been on the page for some years. Gilabrand with a misleading edit summary removed it, and on it being reverted, the usual IP mischief-maker came in to elide it once more (with the meanngless edit summary: ‘Not in listed source. Sourced to "Asad". That edit summary is meaningless because the link to the article by Hazel Ward is not meant to give the source of the file uploaded onto Wiki commons, but to corroborate it.

[File:HebronOldCityTrash.jpg] was uploaded by Asad112 as his own work on 30 July 2009 and reads:’ A view of the net used to collect trash thrown by Israeli Settlers towards the Palestinian part of the Old City of Hebron in the West Bank.’

The text on the page under the photo reads: 'A net installed in the Old City to prevent garbage dropped by Israeli settlers falling into a Palestinian area.'

This is perfectly consonant with the description in the jpg file.

In addition an independent link is provided to an article describing why this net is there. The picture was discussed here where the consensus was for its retention. The link to Hazel Ward, ‘West Bank B&B in Hebron’s Old City fully booked,’ AFP /The Australian May 23, 2011 supporting the veracity of the pic reads:

Like hundreds of Palestinians in H2, Saadeq's closest neighbours are settlers who live in the Avraham Avinu settlement, which faces directly on to his one-storey home and overlooks the narrow alleys where the souk is located. And for those not used to the bizarre reality of life in the shadow of a settlement, a walk through the market can prove enlightening. "About a week ago, they threw down two dead rats and we had to contact the authorities to come and take them away," says shopkeeper Jamal Maraga, pointing up at the houses above the market. "I've been working here since the 1980s and I've seen them throw dirty water, bleach and urine, but that was a first," he says. Overhead, a grid-like mesh is strung across the narrow alley to catch the plastic bottles, dirty nappies and other detritus chucked down by the settlers - wryly described by the shopkeepers as "gifts from heaven".

This is why the pic must be restored, and Crystalfile reverted. If there are objections, rediscuss it for consensus on this talk page. Otherwise, as in the two instances of its removal, its erasure is vandalistic, and should be treated as such.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Gilabrand. Please note

This edit with the visually deceptive edit summary 'add;image', is precisely what you have been requested repeatedly to stop doing, most recently at AE. If you repeat this 'trick', of pretending to add something, while getting rid, without prior talk page consensus, something you dislike, the consequences will be serious.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is really bad behaviour, particularly, if as you say, there is a pattern suggesting it was not an accident. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know you are no spring chicken, but it may be advisable to use your specs. If you cannot see clearly, what I wrote was "add;image." What that means is 1)text was added and 2) I made an image change. I did in fact add images, 3 to be exact, in my following edits. The photo I replaced shows an Israeli flag stuck in a fence with the addition of a caption that is clearly WP:SYNTH. This is an article about Hebron and should include images that depict the city. This photo, from 2009, does not show any visual indication of having been taken in Hebron. Israeli flags stuck in fences are not unique to Hebron. In the link below I see nothing that can be construed as "consensus." Wikipedia is a work in process. Text and images are added and deleted. The world turns. Not everything that was on a page in 2011, must be there in 2014. I am sorry, but bringing new and more suitable images to this article is not "vandalism." I would expect a stickler for language such as yourself to be more careful in your choice of words.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I am such a stickler for language that I wrote:'with the visually deceptive edit summary 'add;image'.' Grammatically your edit wasn't deceptive, but its second part, 'image', is both void of meaning and, contextually 'deceptive', since what you did to the image is not mentioned. From your suggestion I need to use specs, I gather than you don't quite understand what 'visually deceptive edit' means. Let me construe it: You removed a pic that had been removed, then discussed, and from that date, given the discussion, it has been on the page. You removed it with an edit saying you 'added' something. You did, a piece of text. Then after the semi-colon you wrote 'image'. That is empty of meaning standing alone. You either should have written 'added image' or 'removed image'. You removed the image, and wrote an edit summary that disguised the removal by placing before the word 'image' 'add;' Clever, but nothing you say above is pertinent. A stable pic which has been approved, should not be removed without consensus. The caption, also, is not WP:SYNTH: see both the file description and the supporting article.

I didn't question your additions, but your subtractions which are, notoriously on these pages, erasures of material that some editors think might be unpleasant for a POV. So the rest of your remarks is supererogatory. It's a puzzle to my family that I, the most voracious reader, don't need specs. You may share the puzzlement, but even those who do in here often prove to be poor 'readers', specs or no specs. E.g. the above reply to mine.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, you are a stickler for language, but it doesn't seem to be English. Take this notice on your page, for example:

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

In my language, it means one thing, but in yours, apparently it means something else. I would not be so rude as to suggest this could be any intentional trickery or deception. Might it be another case of sentimental attachment to relics of the past such as a five-year old photo of a flag?--Geewhiz (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What she said.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Yawn).

Well, that is a bit hybristic, Gilabrand, I mean, with due consideration of the required gender change, you're trying to teach grannie to suck eggs. In English, at least English to the ear of anyone familiar with its finest modern exponent, James Joyce, 'retired' means (a) withdrawn from active life (b)exhausted once more (c) fresh tires replacing the worn-out tread (particularly apposite for an old geezer like myself who still dabbles about here, mental joints fraying as they do (though an occasional joint smoked while working here helps a chap), without the hyperactivism of bygone, well-oiled years. That I used the word in all three senses is obvious, - a touch of comedy many of you seem to frown on- though the diction in the caption parasitically attached to the retire bracket {{}} insists on a puerile simplification. If some techie can tweak my latest modification so that it will read: ((retired:emeritus editor)) This editor is no longer 'hyperactive' on wikipedia,' I'm sure the exasperation in some quarters at my continued, codgerish presence here will be allayed, if only slightly.

A note of caution on your usage. 'In my language' is used above to mean 'English'. While this vernacular idiom is not solecistic, it is not synonymous with the intended meaning. No one owns the English language: if anything we start out being owned and used by it, or as Fichte once put it, 'weit mehr die Menschen von der Sprache gebildet werden, denn die Sprache von den Menschen,'. Only when one fully takes possession of one's mother tongue can one speak of it with precision as 'my' language, which ergo, is not the case with your comment. Cheerio Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The picture do depict the city. The settlers in Hebron are notorious and well-covered in the article, especially in that section where the picture is located so it makes sense to have that picture. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

1837 earthquake

Jerold S. Auerbach, Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, Rowman & Littlefield,‎2009 p.51 :(1837)'Hebron was severely damaged by an earthquake. When Turkish rule was restored three years later, much of the town was still in ruins.'

Edward Robinson, Physical Geography of the Holy Land, John Murray, London ‎1865 pp.298-9 'the shocks (of the Galilee earthquake of 1837) were felt as far as Bethlehem and Hebron, where however no great damage was done.'

As usual, a fuck-up in I/P source reliability.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say use Robinson on this one unless we can get further verification. Hebron was indeed in ruins by the time Ottoman rule was restored, but that was due to the damage inflicted upon it by Ibrahim Pasha's troops during the 1834 revolt and a couple of years later during major clashes with Amr tribe of the Hebron Hills. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Some slight damage was reported from Hebron, but details are lacking (Neman, 1971)." — N. N. Ambaseys, The earthquake of 1 January 1837 in Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel, ANNALI DI GEOFISICA, VOL. XL, N. 4, August 1997, 923–935. The source is something obscure in Hebrew. Zero^talk 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If Robinson is right, and I agree with you both on this, then we need not mention the earthquake at all. I can't remember the source where I once read that it was one of the factors, others being (a) changes in the Egyptian market (b) Ibrahim Pasha's devastations (c) changes in transjordan trade patterns etc., in the economic decline of Hebron. All I remember was that it was an historical study. I guess the historian must have adduced this factor in terms of the impact of the earthquake on the Jerusalem-Hebron sanjak, since Safed was almost wiped off the map, etc.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Pilgrims

"The armistice agreement between Israel with Jordan intended to allow Israeli Jewish pilgrims to visit Hebron, but, as Israel did not reciprocate in kind, this did not occur." [161]

The source is a book by Sarah Irving, who is involved with the "Electronic Intifada" and therefore possibly a biased source. Is there any other source for this information?

In any case, even if true, the perspective is a bit skewed. During the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, not only were Israelis barred from entry, but all Jews, regardless of citizenship. Given that fact, the idea that barring Israeli Jewish pilgrims to Hebron had anything to do with reciprocity seems far-fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.48.88 (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. I don't think that an association with the Electronic Intifada translates into a badge of unreliability automatically. One looks at the quality of the source and its publisher first. One might note that the Armistice allowed (technically) Jewish visits to the Western Wall, but in practice this never occurred. It is never mentioned that Jordan banned all visits by Muslims in Israel to East Jerusalem as well, so that ban in practice was not resttricted to Jew, but to all those on the other side of the line, pious Muslims as well. These issues are very complex: throughout that period, any Palestinian of 700,000 trying to get back 'home' was branded as an 'infilitrator' and could be shot on sight within Israel (compare the standard Zionist narrative of the wretched fate of Jews attempting to dodge the British Mandatory authorities to reach Palestine. The latter is narrated with bitterness (understandably so), the former, which is identical in its motivations, is dismissed by as fine an historian as Benny Morris with a broadbush confusion of desperate nostalgia for one's roots and homeland and house as 'infiltration' and the borderlines between 'nostalgia' and 'terrorism' blurred. The endless border incidents certainly affected the application of policies and promises given in 1949. But your point specifically on Hebron merits attention, and we'll have to look further into it.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes in phrasing of the lead

@ZinedineZidane: The phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. The "West Bank" is a proper name here, and refers to the west bank of Jordan River, roughly speaking. West Bank is not a province in the country "Palestine". Therefore, the earlier phrasing was better. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's besides the point. If you look up any city in the world, it will say, for instance, "London is the capital and most populous city of England and the United Kingdom" or "Paris the capital and most-populous city of France". Not "London is an English/British city" or "Paris is a French city". Saying "Hebron is a Palestinian city" seems WP:POINTy. cf. "Derry". You wouldn't start the article with "Derry is an Irish city" or "Derry is a British city". It is: "Derry is the second-largest city in Northern Ireland". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, perhaps you will agree that the phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. Simply "West Bank" by itself makes more sense. Secondly, your comparison to other cities are not correct here because London and Paris are not occupied, like the West Bank is. Hence the need for "Palestinian". Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, so you will admit there is a political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made here? Otherwise, how would Hebron and Bethlehem's occupation change how you describe them in the opening sentence of an encyclopedia? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://global.britannica.com/place/Bethlehem http://global.britannica.com/place/Hebron-city-West-Bank ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, can we agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense? Even the Britannica source simply says "West Bank". Secondly, there is indeed a political point being made. Perhaps editors feel that it is an important point to be made (it is of course accurate). This kind of stuff is a matter of judgement, there is no right and wrong here. If you feel that it is important to not write "Palestinian" in the lead, try to find consensus, using RfC or some other method, instead of this ineffectual edit-warring. You seem to be a new user, I would like to direct you to the essay WP:BRD. If you make a bold revert, and it gets reverted, do not simply keep making the revert, but discuss (on the article talk pages, not user talk pages, where others can't see them). Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Three users so far, and none have been able to provide a reason, a source, or a Wikipedia policy which lends credence to the idea that these two cities should have an opening sentence at variance with every other entry on every other city in the world. I am not really new to Wikipedia, but every time I attempt to make a clear, common sense edit which is supported by irreproachable sources, Wiki "veterans" who seem to feel like they own the article I'm editing - immediately revert, with no other justification than their own personal, rather queer reasoning. Why is the opinion of yourself, Nishdiani and Hertz1888 privileged over Encyclopedia Britannica? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for treating these cities differently is that they are different. In the West Bank there is a very strong divide between places that are Palestinian and places that are Israeli settlements. This distinction is perhaps the single fact about them most commonly mentioned by sources, so putting it in the lead is good writing that conforms to policy. The decisions made by other encyclopedias are not our concern. Zero^talk 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thankyou for admitting that this is a case of (1) politicized exceptionalism and (2) placing your own personal opinion above the sources ("other encyclopedias" is quite hilarious btw, you actually believe that as a random, anonymous internet screen-name you have equal or greater authority than the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica). Congrats. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing I have the right to prefer the opinions of multiple reliable secondary sources over the text of one encyclopedia. Zero^talk 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You haven't provided a source here that stays that the customary expression ("X is a city in X") is somehow incorrect in this two exceptional cases. It's just your personal opinion. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We edit consensually, not by unilateral fiat. And we strive to get multiple sources for controversial points. Anyone can make a nonsense of an encyclopedia by a selective use of one source, which might look good, but is either wrong, or badly written etc. Here the consensus is, among 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestinian' editors of experience that one edits on this issue as Hertzl indicated. It is pointless to insist further, unless reality changes, or sources improve. To further revert would be disruptive'Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@ZinedineZidane98: Firstly, since you have not responded to my question thrice, I am just going to assume that you agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. I will assume henceforth, that you simply mean "West Bank", and your position is to remove "Palestinian" from the sentence. In regard to this, I noted that the label is accurate. The decision on whether to use an accurate label in the lead or not is decided by consensus of editors on Wikipedia (which you inaccurately dismiss as "personal opinions"). There is no wikipedia policy which states that we have to follow Britannica text, though of course people can make arguments, convincing or otherwise, based on such things. This is my final comment on the matter. I hope there will be no more edit-warring over this, and you will use proper WP:DR methods if you wish to pursue this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in short: "screw convention, screw the sources, screw other encyclopedia, screw every other article on Wikipedia, we like it this way, because it makes a political/ethnic/nationalistic point we approve of". And "we" are a few online activists, who seem to devote a large part of their life to editing Wikipedia on all matters to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and exclusively in advocacy of one side of that conflict. Seems legit. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you had written a sentence that actually made sense you might have cause for all this babbling. But you didnt. And you didnt because you apparently are under the impression that writing involves filling in the blanks in some template. Now that may have made sense in elementary school but the world you live in is slightly more complicated than a fill in the blank template allows for. But apparently the fact that your favored sentence was nonsensical is "besides the point", because the only point that matters here is everybody else is an online activist and a random, anonymous internet screen-name. Remind me again, what are you? All this babbling because you think everybody but you has some slant they are editing with. And what exactly do you think the political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made is? That its a Palestinian city in Israeli-occupied territory? That there is a difference between Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements in the West Bank? That there is some need to distinguish between the two? nableezy - 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. "Babbling" you say? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware you had one, sorry. And yes, babbling. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have a point, I still don't know what it is. Incidentally here a few examples of places identified as Jewish in the first sentence: Harasha, Shim'a, Naaran, Kfar Bar'am, Or HaGanuz. There are lots of others. The ethnic nature of a place is reasonable in the lead whenever it isn't obvious from the context. We don't write "English city in England" because that would be silly. We do, however, write that Lamponeia, Neandreia, Artemita, Pydna etc were Greek cities in their first sentences because that is key information about them. You should stop this now. Zero^talk 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's very telling that the best you can do is try to equate equate Ancient Greek archaeological sites and Israeli settlements/outposts with actual extant cities, like Hebron and Bethlehem. If "accuracy" was your concern (which it isn't, when you read the first line of any encyclopedia on any city they don't immediately discuss ethnicity) surely you've mention Area C, PA sovereignty etc. But you don't, because that would look ludicrous in the first line... as does categorizing a city's ethnicity/nationality. But, you obviously have a point to push, and you're all very good at it. I'm not "doing" anything - merely pointing out an anomaly, for the record. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The only point I see being pushed here by everyone but you is that WP is edited collaboratively, through consensus. It is time to stop pointing fingers. I suggest you read WP:AGF, and especially WP:FOC. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

^^^. I think we can stop responding now. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

^ The Jews in their land - David Ben-Gurion – 1974. Pg. 250
^ The Jews: their history -Louis Finkelstein – 1970. Pg. 452.

[1] The Jews in their land - David Ben-Gurion – 1974. Pg. 250

[2] The Jews: their history -Louis Finkelstein – 1970. Pg. 452.

[1]

[2]