Talk:Hebron/Archive 3

Amoruso

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

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

Nishidani

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

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

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

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

Amoruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nishidani, first of all altering the text and playing with 3RR is not allowed. You are obviously a NEWBIE and I won't bite you, but you should read WP:3RR. The lead, including the Kiryat Arba fact (though it was further down the lead per a compromise reached) was established long before you entered wikipedia and apparently started this mess. You need to respect long-standing compromises without acting solo like you're doing here. Please try to deliver your points more succinctly and not take up all the page making the material unintelligible for the reader. As for Judea and Samaria, you haven't provided any proof to your claim. The area is in fact called Judea, as well as the surrounding areas i.e Judean Mountains and so. Your personal experiences, fictious or real, do not interest me, thanks. Amoruso 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem was, but to clarify, Judea is an historic region. The West Bank is a geopolitical region. Neither is exclusive to a nationality, either Palestinian or Israeli. Tewfik^Talk 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiryat Arba

Tewfik

The problem is this.

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hebron2000map.html,

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

H1 Under Palestinian Authority

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

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

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

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

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

Tewfik, you write:-

'I sincerely doubt that you would find a source saying that Kiryat Arba is not a suburb, since it actually shares a border with Hebron.'

Perhaps you are right, but, as a very experienced editor and, might I add, student of philosophy, you'll perhaps agree with me that in principle the burden of proving an unsourced assertion lies not on those who challenge it, but those who assert it in the first place.

It is further, incorrect to say that it 'shares a border', in the sense that this tramples on nuances. A considerable amount of the territory between the actual settlement of Kiryat Arba and the designated confines within which Hebron lies, was, and in part still is, technically Palestinian farming land, much of it expropriated ostensibly for security reasons by the IDF or by main force by the settlers, in order to establish an exclusive 'bridge' from Kiryat Arba to the ghost-town that is now H2, apparently to sercure a geophysical link establishing 'facts on the ground' for the Israeli government to take into account when the final determination of the status of the two areas is decided. Some of that land, according to my documentation, has been recognized by Israeli courts as properly Palestinian farming land, to be duly returned to its rightful owners. I'm glad you raised the point however because it does show how delicate questions of phrasing to guarantee the neutrality of this article are, and we owe it to the Encyclopedia to get it right.

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

Amoruso.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is now best put on the appropriate page.

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

The Jewish township of Kiryat Arba lies adjacent to Hebron

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

Disagree. Like I said this was a debate long time ago and was settled. There are many (endless) sources that cite Kiryat Arba as a suburb of Hebron. [1] Therefore there's no reason to deny it. It's not an adjacent town, it really is enclaved inside Hebron and a 5-minute walk from the Cave of the Machpelah. This is very important encyclopedic issue in the context of the article. It is important to note the number of Jews who effectively reside in Hebron and this is by all means part of Hebron but not technically for obvious political reasons. That's all. Therefore it should stay as is. Amoruso 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

some sources saying kiryat arba is suburb:

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

• Kiryat Arba is a suburb of Hebron, five minutes from the Cave of Machpela:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kiryatarba.html

• Jewish suburb of Hebron:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/935

• Kiryat Arba was established in 1970 as the Jewish suburb of Hebron

http://www.amana.co.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=367&CategoryID=100

• Hebron suburb of Kiryat Arba:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/16479/edition_id/323/format/html/displaystory.html

• a new all-Jewish suburb, Kiryat Arba (the biblical name of Hebron)

muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v085/85.1beinin.html

• Hebron, together with suburb Kiryat Arba

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/934.htm

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

• he first arrived to establish the Kiryat Arba suburb of Hebron in 1968

www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_pragmatism.html

• Way home to the Hebron suburb of Kiryat Arba from prayers at the Cave of the Patriarchs

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=201

• in his own town of Kiryat Arba, the Jewish suburb of Hebron

http://www.forward.com/articles/blood-lines/

• by 1979 Kiryat Arba was an established community of thousands. ... of a new Hebron suburb

http://davidwilder.blogspot.com/1999_04_01_archive.html Amoruso 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso.

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

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

You keep repeating:-

’ Like I said this was a debate long time ago and was settled’.

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

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

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

Please avoid making any reverts until you reach a consensus.

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

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

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

(1) Palestinefacts.org. is not a reliable neutral source
(2) Jewish Virtual Library is wrong, for reasons already indicated. It uses the word ‘suburb’ incorrectly in English administrative language, and citing it is no more reliable that citing the same source for the demographics of Hebron.
(3) Arutz Sheva is not even, in Israeli terms, a neutral source. If you read the article it states quite clearly that the use of ‘suburb of Hebron’ is not the kind of language the media use:

‘In 1972 I had a flourishing lawyer's office in Tel Aviv, and yet I left for a Jewish suburb of Hebron that was, at the time, in process of being built. To where did I go? The media would say: To the ‘West Bank’ or into the ‘Occupied Territories,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hertz1888

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

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

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

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

Tewfik

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

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

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

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

Land of the Settlers

The article Land of the Settlers may or may not be encyclopedic. However if it is, then it is surely legitimate to link to it from other related articles. If it is not, then people should raise a deletion discussion. PatGallacher 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. There are literally hundreds of entries related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which are marginally related to Hebron, and which do not belong here. Tewfik^Talk 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed terms on West Bank/Occupied Territories/Judea

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

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

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

By fourteen votes to one,

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

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

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

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

Beit HaShalom

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

For convenience

Beit Hadassah = 10 Families

Beit Romano School with 250 students

Tel Rumeida 15 Families

Beit Hasson 6 Families

Beit Castel 1 Family

Beit Schneerson 6 Families, Kindergarten with 30 Children

Beit Fink  ?

Beit HaShisha 6 Families

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

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

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

Distance Kiryat Arba Machpelah

Is the five minutes walking distance via the whole of 'Prayer Road' or does it refer to cutting off from Prayer Road through Security Road?Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Second holiest??

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

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

Keep up the Good Work

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

Hertz 1888

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

On 30 December 2002 a squad of four Israeli "Border Police" (Yanai Lalza, Shahar Botbeka, Denis Alhazov and Basam Wahabe) kidnapped 4 Palestinians (Amran Abu Hamatiya, Hamza Rajabi and Alaa Sankrat), beating Hamatiya and Sankrat and killing Hamatiya by throwing him out of a moving jeep....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

On names and clutter, note the notable people, 17 Jewish (many of whom may not belong to Hebron, since like Dov Lior they reside in Kiryat Arba), and three Palestinians 'for balance'. David Wilder resides in Hebron, certainly, but where is the evidence that the others do? As to sparing the reader, click on Shalhevet Pass. I can think of a dozen Palestinian children shot dead in similar circumstances there. None are apparently 'notable'. Not a word. Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that Palestinian victims are underrepresented, the remedy is to create responsible, well-sourced articles on those you feel have been overlooked.Elan26 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

This article is about the city of Hebron, a city with more than 2000 years of history. Is this one incident that significant to the city, so as to warrant this level of detail? we've had this discussion before (see [2]). Please read WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You've all missed the technical points.

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

(2)Shalhevet Pass The deplorable violence that occasioned her death is one of a great many. To place that there is to invite pro-Palestinians to create a dozen pages commemorating Palestinian children shot by the IDF or killed by settler violence, a 'retaliatory practice' I deplore. I have seen many obituary pages of this kind struck out as not appropriate to an encyclopedia. As it stands it is a testimony to the Palestinian side of violence. I would never strike it out, but as Canadian Monkey might note, the incident was not significant to the history of a city with over 4000 odd years of continuous settlement. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jordan

Jordan did not attack Israel...Israeli forces did however attack Jordanian positions well inside the area set aside for the Arab partition. secondly Hebron was not attacked by Jordan.. so why include a bunch of baloney while removing a documented incident that reached international notoriety?????

On 30 December 2002 a squad of four Israeli Border Police kidnapped four Palestinians, beating two and killing one by throwing him out of a moving jeep to celebrate 2 of the squads end of tour of duty. After his conviction for killing Amran Abu Hamatiya by throwing him out of the speeding Jeep, Yanai Lalza fled rather than start his sentence....It is an important part of recent Hebron history....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nothing political, unless you think that noting down here facts that are widely deplored in Israel (much of the worst behaviour comes from American Zionists and their descendents) and documented by many Israeli academics see this, most recently by David Shulman in a powerful book (seconded by Avishai Margalit in the New York Review of Books, should be kept off the record?Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Did he die no, lightly wounded...does that mean that Israeli POV is the only POV permissible? No it does not....It does mean that names etc is permissible even for a minor wounding...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming up with yet another case which clearly illustrates my point: The stabbing attack of Mr. Long may be notable enough for inclusion in an article about a particualr incident (which is itself notable - the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre), as it was reported that the stabbing attack was a response to the massacre. However, if we go and look at the Amman article, which is the equivalent of the Hebron article, Long is nowehere to be seen, and rightly so - the stabbing attack of a British tourist is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about Amman. Similarly, the killing of a Pelstinian by IDF soldiers is not notable enough for an article about Hebron, but may be significant enough for an article about the particular incident (you claim it gained "worldwide notoriety" - so perhaps it is worth of its own article?), or in an article about IDF-Palestinian violence. This has nothing to do with Israeli POV vs. Palestinian POV, but with notability of minor events in the context of cities with histories spanning thousands of years. Read WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong analogy. Amman is not a divided city, as is Hebron, which is structured in a way that crisis, killing, segregation, and violence is endemic. What is notable about Hebron is the very high incidence of violence, and harassment, virtually, if you are to believe the many on-site observers' bulletins, on a daily basis. Indeed, the area is one of the most studied in the West bank for this friction between settler communities and indigenous Palestinians. The more severe incidents that constitute turning-points, require note. Probably, these major incidents should be listed briefly (not individuals). This was not a characteristic of its history until after 1979, but is what marks it out in the last few decades. Any sensible editor can see this, and I suggest, since it requires research, and considerable reorganization, that well-established editors from both sides agree to the required rewrite, preferably as schematically as possible. Two basic criteria suggest themselves to simplify the scattered reportage: (a) incidents leading to administrative-military policy changes (b)more than one individual killed or injured. I would also suggest that both parties to such a rewrite proposal agree to call in a supervising admin willing to oversee the changes, given the high risk of conflictNishidani (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The analogy is quite good (though certainly not perfect - analogies never are). The relevant dimensions are the scope of the article - in both cases, articles about major cities with large populations, rich culture and long histories - and the significance of single, recent events to the overall picture. Amman is not Hebron, but it, too had its share of ethnic violence. Those major events (The Black spetember of 1970), in which some 8,000 people were killed, are summarized in 3 brief sentences in that article, without naming even a single individual incident. By contrast, this article already devotes an entire section to "Settler-Palestinian Violence", and more than half of the "Post-Oslo Accord" section is also devoted to the same.

I do agree with your overall position: The "Settler-Palestinian Violence" and the "Post-Oslo Accord" section should probably be merged into one section describing the ethnic violence, and notable events within that context (e.g: the Goldstein massacre, the murder of 12 Yeshiva students) should be listed briefly . Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you gona remove the baby in the pram incident and the article with it?????????????????????? or is your POV showing?????????????????????????????????.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC) And don't forget the 100's of Palestinians CM.....the indiscriminate rocket attacks on a BMW driver etc etc....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Canadian Monkey, Black September was the suppression of an attempted coup d'état of brief duration. The Palestinian militants were expelled from Jordan, and peace returned. Hebron has seethed with violence for more than two decades, as 30,000 people have been pushed out of their properties by settler and IDF violence, and many farming properties have been seized, and their owners shot, as in turn, Palestinians have at times fought very bitterly against the settlers, and some of them have conspired to kill innocents. Therefore the analogy stands, since, if a few days in one city's history merits three lines, thirty years of barely contained hostilities in another city merits a significant section. The analogy therefore was misleading, and cannot stand for the purpose you cite it for.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with your overall proposal, though not with the specifics of the reasoning you provide. Black September lasted more than "a few days" - armed confrontations were taking place well into 1971 - but that's a side issue. You are focused on the duration of the events - a few months for Black September versus 2 decades of sporadic, small scale violence in Hebron. I am focused on the results and impact of the events - the elimination of a state-within-a state that the PLO had in Jordan, 8000 dead and a subsequent exodus of the PLO from Jordan and into Lebanon, arguably the root cause of the Lebanese civil war, and the 1982 Israeli invasion, vs. several dozen people killed (on both sides) in Hebron, with limited overall effect on strained relations between the religious communites in Hebron which date back to at least the 1920s. I am not suggesting we increase the coverage of the Black September events in the Amman article, nor am I advocating eliminating the mention of settler-Palestinian-IDF violence in this article. I agree that this is a defining characteristic of the city today, and warrants a section - but I don't think detailed mention of every incident, be it the murder of a baby in her stroller or the killing of Palestinian thrown from a moving vehicle, is appropriate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The above remarks were not a duel, they were flippant. I feel that the split should be from The British mandate period as a lot of the modern tensions stem from that period.....The past is needed to interpret the present......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No Hebrew Name in the Box?

why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

48 People died in Hebron that day.....Incorrect.....

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

Hillel Weiss

• In August of 2007 Hillel Weiss, father of Tehila Yahalom, verbally abused Hebron Brigade commander Col. Yehuda Fuchs, while IDF troops evacuated 2 settler families from the Hebron wholesale market. Bar-Ilan University, where Weiss is a professor, has publicly distanced itself from his remarks and criticized Weiss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baruch Marzel lives or lived at Tel Rumeida in Hebron, and is notable

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

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

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

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

Itamar Ben-Gvir is in Kiryat Arba May 26th, 2005 -- From the balcony of his home in Hebron’s Kiryat Arba settlement, Itamar Ben Gvir scans the terrain.’

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

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

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

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

I am ok with moving these to the Kiryat Arba page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Npov issue in the "Settler-Palestinian violence" section

I was just reading this article. I feel it is very sad that there is not even one mention of a terrorist attack against Jews in this section. Sad and pathetic actually. I hope to add to it, when I can find the time and find all the proper sources. But whoever is behind this section is not being neutral at all. If you're going to talk about all these alleged Israeli crimes, you are remiss in your duties as a Wikipedia editor to not also talk about terrorist attacks and other such crimes in the area committed by Arabs. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Einsteindonut,

Please, cool down.

The same message as the one you have just delivered could have been more percutant with more wp:civility...

Ceedjee (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ashley, please, refrain from Personnal attacks. Ceedjee (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

True, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Surprised you'd attack like that especially as you were just recently unbanned early for your disregard for the rules. Label me as you wish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This tone is not better. Please fit to facts... Ceedjee (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One small correction, I wasn't talking about Arabs in "the West Bank" but in Judea and Samaria. My idea of neutral is that this controversial section shouldn't even exist until we have an equal amount of material from the Israeli perspective. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it doesn't work that way exactly.

In chronological order :

1. material has to be sourced from wp:rs sources

2. all pov must be given to fit with wp:npov

3. each side must be given wp:due weight

That means that is something is not npov, we must bring more material to neutralize the problem but we don't remove material when it is (properly) sourced (and of course related to the topic).

So, to answer the forementionned issue, does someone have wp:rs sources with statistics about the attacks Israeli settlers of Hebron would have been targeted after '67. Ceedjee (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Ceedjee's request. And would add that there is no such thing as an 'Israeli perspective', a 'Jewish perspective', a 'Palestinian perspective', an 'Arab perspective' etc. These terms are misleading shorthand, and one should always remind oneself that we are dealing with a convenient but parlous fiction. If everything is to be interpreted according to some binary 'is this good for this or that ethnic image', these articles will get nowhere. This is not a chatroom or a lowbrow newspaper forum. The relevant facts are adduced for incidents of violence from both sides, preferably from reliable secondary sources that summarize trends. To interpret the registration of, for example, violent acts by certain settlers in Hebron as insinuating something about 'Israeli crimes' is puerile, since it implies collective guilt. Guilt is personal, not collective. Significant numbers of Israelis and or Jews regularly visit Hebron to defend Palestinians. Ps. 'West Bank' is the internationally accepted term. 'Judea' and 'Samaria' are Israeli administrative terms not considered appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia, since if they were introduced, one would then have to introduce comparable terms of topological definition from Arabic usage Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way to trend for a locality is through newspaper articles.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'to trend for a locality' - and that's not our goal here. The goal is to write a neutral, informative article about the city, and the way to do that is to rely on reliable secondary sources, and avoid undue recentism whish is the by-product of trawling through newspaper articles. You are again encourgaed to read WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The violence between Israeli settlers and local Palestinians as well as the regular intervention of "peace group" there seems relevant to me. By the way, Ashley doesn't say the contrary of what you say... I think she suggested a way to solve the npov issue mentionned by Einsteindonuts... Ceedjee (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

• 2007 Annual Report: Human Rights in the Occupied Territories'

Special Report, December 2007 Download the report: PDF

• Ghost Town: Israel's Separation Policy and Forced Eviction of Palestinians from the Center of Hebron

Joint Report with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, May 2007 Download the report: PDF

• Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians

Status Report, August 2003 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF

• Soldiers' Abuse of Palestinians in Hebron

Case Study No. 17, December 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, Zipped RTF, PDF

• Standing Idly By: Non-enforcement of the Law on Settlers: Hebron, 26-28 July 2002

Case Study No. 15, August 2002 View summary Download the report: DOC, PDF

• Free Rein: Vigilante Settlers and Israel's Non-Enforcement of the Law

Information Sheet, October 2001 View summary Download the report: DOC, RTF, PDF

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

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

• Lethal Gunfire and Collective Punishment in the Wake of the Massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs

Case Study No. 4, March 1994 Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Auditors to ICS

The Israeli military claims the ICS has "delivered money to Hamas terrorist operatives" and "supported the families of suicide bombers and incarcerated terrorists." But Farah said the association has its financial records and accounts "meticulously" scrutinised by Israeli and Palestinian authorities. sorry CM but you must have missed the reference in the source given....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not miss that sentence. It is, you will note, a claim, by Farah, the ICS's lawyer, who is an interested party. This claim was presented as fact. Further, it does not mention an "audit", which is an accounting process with a clear definition, but rather makes mention of some vague "scrutiny" given to its records by unnamed Israeli and Palestinian authorities, and even that claim does not go as far as saying that the Israeli charges were found by these authorities "to be unfounded". I changed the text accordingly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your repeated obsession with "said" vs. "claim" indicates you have not bothered to read my response (where I noted that I do not object to a rewording using "said"), nor even the disputed edit itself – for nowhere in the article's text have I used the word "claim". So, let me dispense at once with your straw-man of asking for the Wikipedia policy requiring the replacement of "said" with "claim", or the SOP of doing so. There is none, I have never claimed there is one, nor have I changed any "said" to "claim". That was not the content of my edit, and not the substance of my claim that the sentence in question was POV. All I did was change an edit which presented a claim as a fact, into a properly attributed statement, and all I wrote in support was that WP:NPOV requires us to do so. Please reread the edit history and confirm this for yourself.

Let me repeat the explanation of my edit for your benefit, once again, with pointers to relevant Wikipedia policy. Prior to my edit, the article presented competing claims in a non-POV way. The IDF position was presented as allegations ("the ICS's alleged promotion of terrorism") while the ICS's position was presented as fact ("when the auditor had checked the accounts [The IDF allegations were] found to be unfounded".), and sourced to an article which did not state this as fact. In fact, the cited article did not state this at all – rather, it quoted the ICS's lawyer as saying words to the effect of "our books are open to scrutiny". Accordingly, I changed this text to present both sides as competing versions (the IDF alleges something, the ICS disputes it), without using the word 'claim' for either side. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:NPOV, and more specifically this section, which states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is not an undisputed fact that an auditor had checked the IDF allegations and found them unfounded – it is just something the ICS lawyer said (in English, and specifically in a legal context, this is called a 'claim"). WP:ASF further tells us 'It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions" – i.e, we need to attribute this statement to the ICS, or its lawyer, not present it as a fact. I have made no value judgment about the reliability of IPS as a source and did not claim it was biased, as you have misleadingly alleged. I merely made our article conform with our core policy of WP:NPOV, which requires that competing opinions about facts, such as the ICS's lawyer's opinion of the IDF claims, be presented as such, and be properly attributed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The previous edit was placed as though the allegation was fact yet you took no action over that? why....Please try not to use the NPOV argument when you have been displaying POV...Your edits are displaying a certain amount of stalking CM...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two additional, very important policies for you to read: WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CM I have always assumed GF...only your edits do make your stalking apparent...that's not a personal attack that is observation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking are a serious matter. Please cease these, and abide by WP:NPA. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

For my external point of view, as observer, I think CM harash a little bit AK, here.

Please, both, try to cool down.

You should know that on wp:en, this will not lead you to any solution that will satisfy you.

Try to focus on the content issues in these discussion and avoid any personal attack.

What are the content issues here exactly and precisely ?

The best way would be to :

• excerpt the sentence
• propose on the talk page the modifications
• check the wp:rs of the sources
• check all the pov are there with their due weight
• theck the wording respect wp:npov

Ceedjee (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Jews Have Long Suffered in Hebron Terrorism: The crime of one gunman can't be equated with centuries of Arab violence

Suicide Bombings Keep Sharon Home

Secretary-General condemns 'despicable' Hebron terrorist attack.

Israel Closes Two Universities in Hebron as Terrorist Havens

15,000 and counting ... Byline: MICHAEL FREUND Edition; Daily Section: Opinion Page: 09

Has the jihad returned?

Hamas: Dimona bombers came from Hebron

Israeli shot dead in "terrorist attack" on Jerusalem-Hebron road

PA celebrates released murderers

In Drive against Hamas, Mofaz Takes on Assad-Nasrallah Duo

Arab Attack on Hebron Signals Shift of Terrorist Tactics

Why can't Jews buy homes in Hebron?

March 27, 2001 Terrorist attack in Hebron on Monday - in which a baby was deliberately shot while in the arms of her mother - was an unprecedented act of cruelty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Einsteindonut, it has been asked you several times already, to keep cool.

And above all, respect WP:AGF and be civil !!! Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a good half of the links you gave here above could be added in the article.

On the content, I would ask you to defitely stop your provocation with such wordings as : "Hebron is an Israeli city"

If an article is not neutral, the only good way is to neutralize this. It is useless to build a conspiracy around this.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am keeping it cool. The fact that the Israeli and Jewish narrative is completely absent from this article (among many others) makes it impossible for me to AGF and shows a complete disregard in Wikipedia's goal of NPOV. If I see people taking more of an active stance to actually provide NPOV (rather than pushing their own POV) into the project, then I would have a much easier time AGF. Furthermore, I did not say anything as a "provocation." The fact that you would take me saying that as a "provocation" is indicative of yet another issue. If you consider that "provocation" then I could, in turn, consider this entirely biased, one-sided article (at this point anyway) a "provocation" of sorts as well. I believe it is absurd to remind someone about AGF rules when they are showing complete disregard toward the more important rule and goal of NPOV. So until you want to actually help take significant action in these problems, please stop reminding me to AGF. GF is earned in my book, not assumed. My issue is not with you or with any editors in particular, but the fact that systematically, Wikipedia does not seem to be accomplishing its goal of NPOV, therefore, it's very difficult for me to have much faith in it. If you and others would stop telling me to AGF and actually do things to make me have more faith, then you'd perhaps see me keeping much more cool. I just provided many links (far more than half are "good") which can be used. I'm asking for editors to help me incorporate them into this article. Will you help me? Or do you wish to continue reminding me of the rules? --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a word on Michael's page to come and discuss with you.

As uninvolved, I will go on reminding you the rules and ask you to focus on content. You should realize that there is no risk I feel like "helping you" if your are not civil and even more friendly with me and with all other contributors...

Assuming the current content is "the proof of a conspirary" is against wp:agf because there are many other explanations : the best -from my pov- is that the people who wrote this section simply had these facts in mind and didn't want to develop the full pov's, which is not wise, but which is not against wp:policies.

Writing "Hebron is an Israeli city" is a provocation. Everybody in the world, whatever his opinion, knows that this mind is not shared by all and would provocate reaction. And I don't write Hebron is not an Israeli city, as well as I don't write it is one. I just point out writing this can only be provocation.

Only next interesting step is now to put the material you found in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of security checkpoint

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

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

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

Insert advice to "cool down" and various WP rules regarding civility and other random things here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know you are upset but please, this last comment make me laugh with great joy :-)

Ok. I stop inserting "adivce to cool down and various wp rules regarding ..."

Ceedjee (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)