Talk:Hebron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Factuality Disputed 2 Some images that could be added to the article 3 changed order of names 4 (no title) 5 Removal of inaccurate photo and caption of netting. 6 Edits to Controversy: Jewish settlement after 1967 7 NPOV tag 8 Edits by Amoruso on 18 November 9 Very biased article 10 Baruch Goldstein 11 Maps 12 Qiryat Arba as suburb 13 Palestinian history category? 14 The Fact 15 Haaretz 16 Palestinians leaving Hebron has been "attributed to continued harassment by settlers"

[edit] Factuality Disputed

I posted a factuality dispute because I noticed, among other things, that it says that there are only 500 Jews in Hebron. I dispute this fact and want to know where the source is from. Other sources indicate that at least 7,500 Jews live within the environs of Hebron. Also, why exactly was the picture of the Cave of Machpela removed from the article? It is the most famous site in Hebron and should headline the article as the main photograph instead of just propagandaish rock-throwing. Valley2city 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok first off, you can simply add a {{fact}} tag to the 500 if you would like a source. Here's and Israeli source for starters. Secondly, I don't know who removed it but it would be better to have an image of the actual city, something that reflects it's...population which is predominately Arab. In regards to the picture of Palestinian boys, I thought it balanced the article out. When I first saw it we just had the picture of Israeli soldiers. I think the two images go together quite nicely, actually. Anyways, if you have ever been to Hebron or have pictures, I'd love to see them. I plan to go there someday. —Khoikhoi 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another factuality dispute: The statement, "With the advent of Ottoman Turkish rule in 1516-17, there was a violent pogrom in with many Jews were raped and killed and Jewish homes were plundered." which was part of the Ottoman period (History) is a claim (bias?), and has no references. I took it out. 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some images that could be added to the article

Photos by Justin McIntosh, August 2004. The POV in the captions is not necessarily one that I hold, it's just that I didn't feel like changing them. (decided to just link) —Khoikhoi 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(see commons:Category:Hebron)

—Khoikhoi 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

can't you just link to it instead of planting all the pictures here (mostly with extremely biased and wrong captions) ? Amoruso 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of that, but it's easier to access here. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems distruptive, intrusive and not fitting for a discussion page. Amoruso 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I posted these images is for the exact reason in the heading, that they could be used in the article. How is this disruption? —Khoikhoi 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It disrupts the normal reading of text here - you can provide a link to the gallrey in the commons here too I think.. n'est pas ? Amoruso 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changed order of names

the hebrew name is not only more ancient but it also sounds practically the same to the english name, so it doesn't make sense to put the arabic name first as opposed to Jericho for instance... even though that according to precedence should have been the hebrew name first too. Amoruso 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It may sound the same but it's not. Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, you can add a paragraph about etymology, stating that the English name comes from the Hebrew name, but I see no reason why it should go first. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact I've decided to add it, and Almaqdisi has added information about the etymology of "الخليل". —Khoikhoi 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree of course. The name is Hebrew related and for the other reasons mentioned already - Hebrew history making it one of the 4 most important cities and the first city of David, it makes sense to put the original name first. But I won't revert unless further users join me on this. Amoruso 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but there isn't a Wikipedia policy that says these names have to be in chronological order. I think that showing the Arabic name first shows readers that Hebron today is mostly an Arab city. Note that the the Turkish word "İstanbul" comes from the Greek name for the city (or a Greek phrase), but we have the Turkish name first because today it's a mostly Turkish city (also because Turkish is the official language in Turkey). —Khoikhoi 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's a turkish word ! The greek word is : "Konstantinoúpoli" . In here we have an ENGLISH word that's not related to the ARABIC word. The fact that it's mostly Arab is true, but it's not under any political state at the moment which forces the residents to a specific name, and it's an historical town, biblical town as well. Amoruso 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Khalil" and "chaver" mean the same thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades - great, but why should we start with that? This is the city where David was anointed a couple of millennias before that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So therefore the names should be in chronological order? Shouldn't we have the Latin name at the Jerusalem article? (Hierosolyma) —Khoikhoi 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Hebrew name should come first. This is the english wikipedia and that is the name of the place in English. The English name comes from the Hebrew name, which is also the older name. There is not much clear logic in saying that the historical argument is negated by the numbers of people who live there now (especially since those numbers have been so influcenced and created by violence towards Jews throughout history). Please remember that Avraham purchased the cave and the field around it as a burial place for his wife Sarah mother of Issac and that aside from Abraham only the Jewish side of our big family is buried there. Calling it something based on only Avraham negates the Jewish history there and is kind of, well, revisionist in a pretty deliberate way. This isn't mecca or medina which is undisputably moslem. That being said, I don't think it is crucial that the Hebrew name comes first in Wikipedia but it seems like a pretty low blow to insist that it shouldn't. Elizmr 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The chronological order of the ruling powers at a certain historical location seems only logical to me. Of course, if such powers make a long list (as in Jerusalem), we don't want to clog the intro with the names, translations, pronunciations, etc., and I would support separating such long list into a subarticle (see Names of Jerusalem) or a subsection. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (no title)

The Old City of Hebron has been taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers, intent on ridding the area of its indigenous Palestinian population.

The grille of wires over the old city is littered with items that have been thrown down by Israeli settlers onto Palestinians walking below. Not as the article suggests, to stop Palestinians throwing things into settler homes.

Also, the Israeli settlers are there illegally under international law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.101 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006.

Interesting, but do you have any sources that say this? (I'm referring to your comment about the wires) If so, please make sure they're reliable and most importantly, provide them. Khoikhoi 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of inaccurate photo and caption of netting.

Doctors without Borders, The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), part of the World Council of Churches, and an organization called Global Ministries, all refute your claim that the nets are to protect Israelis. This was after a 5 minute google search, I could find many, many more sources if you'd like. It is common knowledge that the nets are to protect Palestinians, I've been to Hebron twice in the past 2 years and the nets in some portions are completely filled with garbage that could only have been put there from above (i.e. by the settlers). The sand bag is likely there to hold the nets in place so they cant be moved by either side. I am removing your photograph and the caption as it is not representative of the true situation in Hebron. You may put it back if you can find backing from a group at least as nonpartisan as doctors without borders. Wlf211 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC

It would be interesting to hear more information about the massacaring of Jews in 1929 and 1936 which forced the cities Jewish population to flee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.229.203.189 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 November 2006.

There is already a page on that subject, appropriately titled 1929 Hebron Massacre. It is linked to twice in the article, first in the history section under the heading British Mandate, and later on under the 1967 Controversy heading. the 1929 Massacre page is in depth and provides plenty of information, I imagine more information on the subject is not included in the Hebron article for this reason. Most (if not all) of the pieces of information in the Hebron article is not substantial enough to have its own article. I also dont understand why this comment was made under this heading and what, if anything, it had to do with the removal of the inaccurate photo caption. It is generally better and less confusing to put posts bringing up new issues be put under their own heading. Thanks.--Wlf211 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Controversy: Jewish settlement after 1967

I sought to update the section and include some illustrative photos, the last section in particular was unclear and the mistake in the reference code made it seem very out of place so I combined the two section and added some clarifying information. I also put in information about the Stars of David above the doors (which is generally accepted as hard evidence of former Jewish residences), and included the section about the violence of extremist settlers and tried to show that the violence there is much worse than violence anywhere else in the OPT. Wlf211 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

What was the basis for removing the NPOV tag? I see no discussion of it, and the edit gives no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Amoruso on 18 November

I am reverting the edits made on the 18th by Amoruso because aside from one or two controversial sentences, the parts removed are well sourced and for the most part generally accepted. The portions about the netting are fact as well as the part about the 1997 letter sent by the 1929 Descendants. If you can prove that it is not this reason why the netting is there, and why there is garbage on the top of the nets (the settler side) in the photo then show me and you can take it down. I dont think there is any way you could disprove the 1997 letter the reporting comes from reputable newspapers. I am willing to make some compromises on the parts about settler brutality if you can find some sources that are contrary, but I think it is pretty much common knowledge that attacks by Palestinians are much more brutal in other cities like Nablus or Ramallah but attacks by settlers are far and away worse in Hebron than in any other part of the West Bank. I put this information in there because settler attacks are rare in areas of the West Bank besides Hebron so it is notable.--Wlf211 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very biased article

Why is it that all of this pictures included in this article show Israeli soldiers and other events related to the current conflict? Why is there not even a single picture of the tomb of Abraham, which is far more important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 (talk • contribs) .

Note: above added by anon, but I think the article would benefit from these pix as wellElizmr 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

Hey, I don't think we're mentioning BG enough in this article? Could we mention him in the lead, every section, the "also see" section, the external links section, and the notable people section?????? Elizmr 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I think the article should include maps, showing the location of Hebron and the jewish settlements on the West Bank, so we can have a better visual understanding of the areas of conflict. I think this should apply to every article about cities, regions or countries, for the display of maps are a great asset in studying geopolitical affairs.

[edit] Qiryat Arba as suburb

No reason not to add it, it was sourced to a scholary source. [1] It's also frequently described as such [2] [3] it's unthinkable to remove it. Cheers, Amoruso 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suburbs being of course relevant to city articles. For example, Eurodisney being mentioned in the article about Paris, even though it's actually in the town of Marne-la-Vallée. Kiryat Arba is 5 minutes by walking to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Simple google searches show that it's frequently referred to as "Kiryat Arba-Hebron" [4] . In fact, its official name is Local Council Qiryat Arba Hebron.[5] Amoruso 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We can mention this further down below, in the Geography section. Kiryat Arba is not a "suburb", but an Israeli settlement. Khoikhoi 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call it a settlement but it's a suburb of Hebron, sorry. I provided neutral refernces. Amoruso

The UN says it's a settlement too: [6] Khoikhoi 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It being a settlement according to the U.N or it being a settlement objectively even has no bearing on it being a suburb too. It's apples and oranges, you can add that it's a settlement too if you wish. Amoruso 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian history category?

What is Hebron's contribution to the history of the Palestinian people? Psychomelodic (people think Baba Ram Dass ^{write your own!}) 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked into the article after I saw your deletion. I saw many references to events that occurred in the city from the early 20th century (when both "Israeli" and "Palestinian" nationalism intensified) onwards, including riots, massacres, religious significance, settlements, etc. If you want to argue that it is not related to "Palestinian" history, it really isn't "Israeli" history either, but rather Jewish history (as well as Islamic history). But clearly both Israeli and Palestinian history categories belong. What is your reasoning? Ramallite ^(talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, I'm on with removing History of Israel category because I find it insulting that such ancient city is assigned to 50~ years old country. Category:Palestinian history is not better, if not worse. I think it is best to replace Cat:Palestinian history with Cat:History of Palestine and Cat:History of Israel with Cat:Jewish history. Psychomelodic (people think Baba Ram Dass ^{write your own!}) 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an intense effort recently to remove categories with the word "Palestine" in them (via CfD) and replace them with "Palestinian". You also just explained why you don't like reference to Israel but still haven't explained your aversion to "Palestinian history" or at least refuted my reasons. In any case, as to your proposal, what say others? Ramallite ^(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Palestine, History of Levant, I don't care. History of Israel is for events in the history of the State of Israel and not Land of Israel. Psychomelodic (people think Baba Ram Dass ^{write your own!}) 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be Category:Palestinian history or Category:History of Israel. If you made a fork article History of Hebron then those categories may apply, but for now neither of them seem to fit here. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fact

The original name is AL-Khalel and there is no doubt about that and the land is an arabic land and the people is an arabic people what ever the jewish may said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.84.18 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Haaretz

Why is Haaretz not a reliable source. Khoikhoi 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

without getting too much into the details of the event which i didn't inspect fully, Gideon Levi, the writer of your last edit, was romantically involved for over two years with a politically motivated palestinian, he is considered a fringe extremist leftist by mainstreem and considered "hardcore" leftist by left winged people in Haaretz. to top things off, he doesn't know arabic and takes things at face value from Fatach, or other politically motivated interperters.

personally, i consider haaretz a far more reliable source on the printed hebrew version than on any online version or worse, the english version. just recently, i confronted Haaretz online english editors over a blatant misrepresentation (compare english murder liable here note 3rd and 4th paragraphs with this hebrew print version doctor brought in by family found no bruises)- and was basically told "go fish". Jaakobou 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I personally believe Gideon Levy almost never gets his facts wrong, the correct solution to this dispute is to attribute the claim "This has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers" to a more mainstream source. This shouldn't be too hard since it is well known and reported in a large number of places. There are even books about it by academic historians. --Zero^talk 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A seemingly fair statement, albeit, I personally believe that Gideon Levi almost always gets his terminology and "testimonials" wrong... and many times this is done on purpouse, as he admitted in a TV interview, whith the case of the titling on the article about the hamas victory in the elections. Jaakobou 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't necessarily have to be neutral, as long as they are attributed properly. We could say something like, "According to Haaretz and Christian Peacemaker Teams, this has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers." Khoikhoi 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

unless you want to muck the article up with criticism about gideon levi, i suggest you use other more balanced sources. Jaakobou 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinians leaving Hebron has been "attributed to continued harassment by settlers"

Let's look at the sources used for the contentious claim that harassment by settlers has forced thousands of Palestinians to leave Hebron:

• [7] - an opinion piece by a far-left correspondent.
• [8] - this article never makes that claim.
• [9] - a speech made by a senior UNWRA official, a highly partisan body staffed almost entirely by Palestinians
• [10] - a summary of a B'Tselem report; it claims 73 families had left by 2003.

Contentious claims, particularly when stated as fact, require excellent sources; I don't think these are measuring up. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a contentious claim? Not very--even the settlers have said in many press interviews that they are trying to convince the Palestinians to leave, and even IDF spoksepeople are on record about the regular settler violence. UNWRA is a perfectly good source and no more partisan than most organisations involved with this subject. Of course the sentence in the article should state who attributes the exodus to this cause.

• "The settler campaign and the consequent economic deterioration succeeded in driving out most families with property in the Old City, who moved to newer neighborhoods with better infrastructure, services, and investment possibilities. The historic Old City became an urban slum. By the mid-1990s, only an estimated four hundred Palestinians were still living in the some twelve hundred historic buildings." (Anita Vitullo, People tied to place: strengthening cultural identity in Hebron's old city, J. Pal. Studies, Vol 33, No. 1, 2003, p68-83.)
• Nora Barrows-Friedman, "MIDEAST: ISRAELI OCCUPATION LEAVES HEBRON OCCUPIED, AND DESERTED", Inter Press Service, Jan 22, 2007 (title indicates contents accurately).
• Mel Frykberg, "Under pressure: Israeli settlers in Hebron are hellbent on persecuting the inhabitants of the area, in an effort to drive them out of town.", The Middle East, Issue 372, 2006, p12 (title indicates contents accurately).
• "An eye for an eye deepens bitter divisions in biblical city of Hebron 'Nobody has put a gun to anybody's head'.", Irish Times, 21 February 2004 (retiring leader of TIPH, Norwegian Jan Kristensen, told Haaretz that Palestinians were being driven out of the Israeli-controlled area of the city by attacks from settlers as well as Israeli army heavy-handedness, including house demolitions and curfews. ""In a sense cleansing is being carried out," the Norwegian Jan Kristensen told Ha'aretz newspaper. "In other words, if the situation continues for another few years, the result will be that no Palestinians will remain there. It is a miracle they have managed to remain there until now."
• Btselem's 2003 report on the reasons for the Arab exodus: [11]
• Meron Rapoport, "Ghost Town", Haaretz, 17/11/2005 Part 1. Part 2

Actually this is a hard topic to search for due to there being no distinctive keywords. --Zero^talk 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)