Talk:Hebron/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

A synthetic source on the military situation worthy of consideration

This is written by a former commander in the zone Yehuda Shaul, The only way to end the violence in Hebron +972 magazine 2 November 2015.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Antisemitic statements in the paper Too much of this article depends on unreviewed and known bias sources. This is inevitable with the topic and finding balanced reports are ineed thin. But the line needs to be drawn with the repetition of classic racist anti-semetism being repeated as broad fact. That is written 'anti-semitic'. That community is notorious even in Israel for the extremity of its extremely peculiar settler culture, and all this is very well documented. It even has its defendents such as Jerold Auerbach and Michael Feige, but they sweetly glide over that strain of madness. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Actually, your wrong. The "source" is not even legitimate and shouldn't be a citable source. The settlers IN HEBRON are a wide variety from Chabad, to securalists. I know you would like to paint Chabad as a Meshianic "Cult" but that exact racist rhetoric has been used against Jews for CENTURIES. Every Jew that puts on Tfillin is a Meshianic extremist by the standards applied by the artical and EVERY Jew says, I remember Jerusalem at the passover sedar. The statement that all the settlers after 1967 are founded with the ideological commandment to break the law and kill, if necessary and bring meshianic race war is a LIE.... PERIOD and doesn't belong repeated in this article. I hate the racists, and race baiters allowed to run free on wikipedia. And how about the Chabad Sysnaguages and follwers who have been there since the Rebbe lived in Hebron in the 1830's, these are also part of the post 1967 "madmen" or ar you in fact just a racist spreading your specific brand of hatred and anti-Jewish propaganda whenever you can all over the internet. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Instead of fixing this blatant antisemetic snear, the page as been locked from editing. The editor is a racist and should be locked out and th paragraph removed. In fact, under German Law, and other nations, this paragraph is in violation and anti-semeitsm statutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Furthermore this IP address qualifies with over 500 edits BY FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC) By any rational standard this is a classic form of anti-Semitism .... The use of Messianic Jewish theology as evidence of Jews being an internal threat is a classic anti-Semitic tactic used for nearly 1000 years and it should not be tolerated on wikipeda removing this section is vandalism and supports racism by suppressing this complaint. This paragraph is a bigoted statement and should not be in wikipedea ~~It is a classic tactic by antisemetic propaganda to use the belief in the Mesheach or the Messiah as a reason for politic repression. The false charge is being levied here, and is very problematic. Does that author who wrote that paragraph aware of the historical context of his charges? The paragraph needs to be pulled for be factually wrong and for being a form of anti-semetism 24.38.3.28 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Post-1967 settlement was impelled by theological doctrines developed in the Mercaz HaRav Kook under both its founder Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, according to which the Land of Israel is holy, the people, endowed with a divine spark, are holy, and that the messianic Age of Redemption has arrived, requiring that the Land and People be united in occupying the land and fulfilling the commandments. Hebron has a particular role in the unfolding 'cosmic drama': traditions hold that Abraham purchased land there, that King David was its king, and the tomb of Abraham covers the entrance to the Garden of Eden, and is a site excavated by Adam, who, with Eve, is buried there. Redemption will occur when the feminine and masculine characteristics of God are united at the site. Settling Hebron is not only a right and duty, but is doing the world at large a favour, with the community's acts an example of the Jews of Hebron being "a light unto the nations" (Or la-Goyim) [210] and bringing about their redemption, even if this means breaching secular laws, expressed in religiously motivated violence towards Palestinians, who are widely viewed as "mendacious, vicious, self-centered, and impossible to trust". Clashes with Palestinians in the settlement project have theological significance in the Jewish Hebron community: the frictions of war were, in Kook's view, conducive to the messianic process, and 'Arabs' will have to leave. There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.29 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Aside from being wrong on the facts, it follows the classical formula of the Protocols of Zion. When you a palestinian radical, why let a good snide prevent you from being a bigot. Obviously all followers of Rav kook are Mechianic crazys and none of the people who survived the purge of Jews would want any return to the graves of Abraham and Sarah, or the Cemetary or Avraham Avinu synaguage. It says so in this "dependable" source and all the arabs and radical communists here are in consenus... 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)96.57.23.82 (talk) the stupid article even talks against itself. It says here: There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] - which is obviously wrong and bias when there are chabbadnicks there directly related to previous Jewish families that lived there... and then it more accurately says here: Survivors and descendants of the prior community are mixed. Some support the project of Jewish redevelopment, others commend living in peace with Hebronite Arabs, while a third group recommend a full pullout.[181] Descendants supporting the latter views have met with Palestinian leaders in Hebron.[182] In 1997 one group of descendants dissociated themselves from the settlers by calling them an obstacle to peace.[182] On May 15, 2006, a member of a group who is a direct descendant of the 1929 refugees[183] urged the government to continue its support of Jewish settlement, and allow the return of eight families evacuated the previous January from homes they set up in emptied shops near the Avraham Avinu neighborhood.[181] Beit HaShalom, established in 2007 under disputed circumstances, was under court orders permitting its forced evacuation.[184][185][186][187] All the Jewish settlers were expelled on December 3, 2008.[188] So why allow thew continuing bigotry in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC) It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I'm willing to bet most Jews in the world know nothing of the peculiar intricacies of hermeneutic theology prevalent in a number of Hebron's yeshivot. The article is a scholarly description of what is taught there, and we document this.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC) No the source is not scholarly and the source a diatribe against Jews. As a fact, their at 70 families in Hebron, quite a few of them mainstream, Chabadnick school. The source is invalid, as anyone can tell just by the tone of the posted paragraph that makes a classical case for repression of jews based on the core of their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, while we are on the topic, the Hebron Yeshiva is the same Yeshiva that the Arabs tried to kill everyone in 1929. It is not only Mainstream Judaism, but it has been a cornerstone for the Rosh Yeshiva across the World including Rabbi Kotler and Rabbi Hunter of the Beth Medrash Govoha and Chaim Berlin Yeshiva - two of the largest in the world. The education in Hebron is parallel to the Jewish education anywhere else in the world, and is a full participant in the 3000 year old Talmudic tradition. To assert that the Yeshiva is a threat to Arab populations, which is what is being said in this paragraph, and which is in conflict with the rest of this article, is itself proof of the anti-Semitic nature of this paragraph, regardless of the sources. You can not say that mainstream Jewish studies and belief in the messiah is cause of civil disobedience and poses a threat to the arab population. To do so to propagate a classic anti-Semitic lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk • contribs) Yeshiva University, by all accounts a mainstream Jewish educational facility hires Hebron Yeshiva scholars regularly and supports the Herbon School. This includes J. Mitchell Orlian Associate Professor of Bible BRE, BA, MS, PhD, Yeshiva University; Ordination, Hebron Yeshiva, Israel. So it is hard to see how the source can be considered reliable. So the paragraph is in conflict with the rest of the article, quotes an unreliable source that doesn't have a NPV, and echos a classical false accusation that have been used for ages. It seems the paragraph is a form of anti-semitic rhetoric and that it should be pulled by Wikipedia standards 166.84.1.1 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC) There continues to be this anti-semetic smear on the Hebron page. Perhaps one can explain how the inconsistency in the article and how the paragraph in question proves to be not just a recooking of the Protocols of Zion? 166.84.1.1 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC) The work which was quoted is not from a non-biased point of view or a peer reviewed article. The author, Hanne Eggen Røislien, is a know anti-Jewish aggitator who has credentials in cyber-securty and is wholy incapable of balanced analysis. In his previous work, he accused the IDF of being a fundamentalist organization because their communiques during Rosh Hashona had articles about Holiday happenings and dippying apples into honey in his article "Religion and coming to terms with soldiering in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ". This is equivalent to complaining that Stars and Stripes is full of Christmas stories and that Christmas Carols are being sone by officers at a hospital visit... as proof that the US Army is a fundamentalist Christian organization. It is very dangerous when people like this are given any kind of serious consideration because any sign of Jewishness is translated as fundamentalism and danger to the world order. "In the posted article in support for the bigoted and contradicted segment of this article being discussed, the paper starts out with this: In the West Bank city of Hebron the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still overshadows all activities. Despite the tension, friction, and violence that have become integral to the city’s everyday life, the Jewish Community of Hebron is expanding in numbers and geographical extent. Since the Six Day War, the community has attracted some of the most militant groups among the settlers in the West Bank, responsible for severe violence against Palestin- ians, including harassment, car bombs, and attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. Why do the members of the Jewish Community of Hebron wish to live and raise their children in such a violent setting? Using a series of interviews with members of the Jewish Community of He- bron and related settler communities in the period 2000–05, the article examines the ways the Jewish Community legitimizes its disputed presence. It reveals a deep religious belief, blended with intense distrust of and hatred toward the Palestinian population." That in itself is inaccurate. The Hebron Community is limited to 70 families and has been so restricted for a long time. You would never know the Israeli's won the six day war by the reality in the city where Jewish Yeshivas have been in fact converted to Mosques. The community is a fraction of its size and population of previous generations. The final sentence is true about the entire worldwide Jewish population. After generations of racist hatred and terrorist attacks against the Jewish people, the entire Jewish population has a deep religious belief, but the articles standards which is an idiot standard as we can see from the previous complaints about apple and honey dipping, and intense distrust and hatred towards the Palestinian population.... not to mention the Germans, Ukrainians and Muslims and any number of other peoples who spill Jewish blood without remorse and repeatedly. The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of The Article then claims, "The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of the incident on February 25, 1994, when Baruch Goldstein,an American-born settler and member of the illegal ultra- right Kach party, opened fire on Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of Abraham in the heart of Hebron,..." etc. This is WRONG factually. The current protocol was born from the Oslo accord. Now, lets start with his bias analysis: "In an interview on July 26, 2000, spokesperson David Wilder stated: Everything that happens now is written in the Tanakh [the Hebrew Bible]... . God decides everything. Hebron is where it all started and where it all continues. It is not a coincidence that the Jewish Community of Hebron exists today or that people do as they do there. History proves us right. The statement spells out two central dimensions in the worldview of the Jewish community of Hebron: Firstly, the literal understanding of the sacred texts. Secondly, the understanding of themselves as active and decisive parts in the cosmic puzzle called “contemporary history.” " This is a completely IGNORANT analysis. This statement is a typical rehashing of basic Jewish theology which is universally accepted and what is flatly stated in the Torah, A) that Sarah dies in Hebron and Abraham buries here there, along with the other patriarchs, and B) that all events in the world are under the guidance of god. C) Hebron is a special place for Jews to live in, as the stories of the Spies says in plain language. If this is an example of radicalism, then the entire Jewish faith and the entire Jewish people are radicals, or the author is clueless. It does not justify the believe that the settlers in Hebron are fundamentalist who will disobey Israeli law and national orders, and randomly kill Palestinians. This has not been the case and it is still not the case. If you want to condem the Hebron settlers, and the IDF and Israel for being Jewish...SO BE IT. Such is what they are. Such is what we all are. And we all want to live in Peace and in our home land and safely in the broader scope of humanity. This is not an example of the opening remarks truly NPOV article. You don't begin your analysis by picking out a quote of choice, wrapping it up in a a unsubstantiated conclusion, and then use that to propel the rest of your analysis. This is clearly and example of someone who has a perspective, chooses a choice piece of 'evidence' to justify their prejudice, and then goes on to write a document based on this prejudice. Bases on this articles lack of prejudice alone, and its inaccuracies, this paragraph needs to be removed from the Wikipedia record. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC) For a start, Hanne Eggen Røislien is a female, and her phD was about about the role of religion in the IDF. Her Norwegian wp-page here. She has previously worked for the UN and TIPH, in Hebron. Presently working for a research-division of the Norwegian defence department. She is obviously a WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Maybe you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. The evidence is CLEAR that the quoted work is not NPOV. 166.84.1.2 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Maybe it is possible that the defenders of this paragraph and of Røislien , PhD and expert can explain how this supposed expert on the middle east can't get the basic facts straight like the outline of the Oslo accords, and the events that triggered the inexcusable pogrom in Hebron in 1929, where SHE, pardon me, clearly blames on Jews in the same article, for wanting to pray at the Kotel in Jerusalem. When you perspective is skewed, there is always a reason too kill a few Jews. BTW her expertise is "Hanne Eggen Røislien (PhD) is a senior researcher with the Norwegian Armed Forces Cyber Defence and adjunct researcher with CSIS in Washington DC. Her current research focuses on cyber officers and information security culture". Here doctoral work on the IDF is fundamentally bigoted and starts with accusing the IDF of celebrating Rosh Hashona. NO institution of any substance would give this women a PdH on the studies of the IDF for accusing the Jewish States Army of discussing the Jewish New Year.... 96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Røislien has her phD from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. She has also been working at Center for Strategic and International Studies, in the US. Like it or not; her work is clearly WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Comment Having looked into this, I think the IP does have a point. Notwithstanding that Røislien has a PhD, she seems to write not as a scholar but as an agitator. The kindest description would be anti-Israeli but the accusation of anti-Semitism does not appear far-fetched. I took a look at her writings, and found a very systematic bias where any Israeli victim passively "lost their lives" and any Palestinian victim actively "were killed", and any escalation always blamed only on the Israelis. That a person satisfies WP:RS only mean that we can include their views, not that we must or should. There are many WP:RS that fail WP:FRINGE for instance. I'd lean towards not including Røislien here nor in any other article. Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Reply. I'm rather surprised by this. I hadn't replied to the IPs' comments above, because they are unfocused rants, coming, by the looks of it, as often on this page, straight out of the community dealt with on this page, lacking even basic understandings of elementary history ('3000 year old Talmudic tradition,'= adding 11-12 centuries onto the Talmud, etc). I regard myself as responsible here, since I added that source, and the implication would be that I add anti-Semitic material to Wikipedia. So I'll reread the article and reply in due course.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Regarding fulfilling WP:RS Hanne Eggen Røislien has a doctorate in the History of Religions. She has since specialized in the sociology of military cultures, and conflict studies. I think it was I who also introduced (a)Jerold Auerbach,'s Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, and Michael Feige's Settling in the hearts: Jewish fundamentalism in the occupied territories, to this page. Both of those books are characterized by an inability to go into the dark side of Hebron, except regarding Palestinians; they are very settler-friendly, and gloss over much. But they are indisputably RS, contain important information, and therefore one does not hesitate to use them. The same goes for Røislien. She has the right linguistic qualifications (Hebrew) and area specialist knowledge. The paper was based on intensive fieldwork over several years. She was published in a respectable academic journal the International Journal of Conflict and Violence The document is not about Judaism, it is about how Judaism is interpreted in those Hebron communities, which is often at odds with forms of interpretation current in other varieties of Judaism, orthodox, ultra-orthodox and reform. This appears in her own language (e.g.'Traditional rabbinic Judaism emphasizes the unity and oneness of God. 'However,the religious outlook of the Jewish Community of Hebron . .p.176, etc.) I can't see any trace of anti-Semitism, a serious charge that should be documented, and not just brandished about as a vituperative slogan (as the IPs did). I happen to be very familiar with both Hebron, and the religious messianic culture in that city. Everything in the paper is 'not new', is attested in numerous academic works on that city, except for the theological peculiarities regarding the infra-community theories of redemption. Just as Hebron has a highly conservative Islamic tradition,and has its own extremists (notoriously, the Qawasme clan), so too the Hebronite core community is flush with extremists. As Ian Lustick stated decades ago, it and other settler outposts like it are 'hothouses or political extremism’ characterized by ‘ruthless use of violence’. Otherwise, it would be inexplicable that a rabbi can get community applause for saying at Baruch Goldstein's funeral,-he had just machine-gunned dead 29 Muslims bowed in prayer- "one million Arabs aren't worth one Jewish fingernail," or no one there find anything unusual in hyper-'religious' women of some notoriety switching from nice homely smiles to termagant violence as you see here in an incident at Tel Rumeida, one of the most horrifying places in the West Bank for Palestinians, where all Arab women are 'whores' and their daughters 'cunts' all this said by people who frequent Hebron's yeshivot where senior charismatic teachers like Moshe Levinger, Baruch Marzel,Noam Federman and Dov Lior either have criminal backgrounds, or have been frequently hauled before courts in Israel or interrogated by the police for inflammatory statements or real violence against Palestinians. The article is not about Judaism, or Jews, but about a peculiar enclave culture within Judaism, a culture, curiously enough, which has a disproportionate number of American-born settlers in its ranks (Marzel is from Boston, Goldstein, like Meir Kahane, was from Brooklyn (as are Norman Finkelstein and Bernie Sanders - that's how diverse Judaism is), Yitzchak Ginsburgh etc. We are talking about very intricate microstories, deserving study, and the attempt by the IPs to annul these peculiarities by 'normalizing' everything as part of a world-wide 'Jewish' reality is a travesty of the larger Judaism, within Israel and the diaspora, as many rabbis have noted. This is the implication of Arik Ascherman 's mention of avodah zarah, blasphemous idolatry regarding the kind of redemptionist ideology used in Hebron to rob and thieve, and sometimes kill, an ideology Røislien's study documents from interviews with the Hebronites themselves.)Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Nothing you wrote here addresses the basic problem that the paragraph is racist, and the author is NPOV and also racist. Hanne Eggen Røislien has a doctorate in the History of Religions. She has since specialized in the sociology of military cultures, and conflict studies. I think it was I who also introduced (a)Jerold Auerbach,'s Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, and Michael Feige's Settling in the hearts: Jewish fundamentalism in the occupied territories, to this page. Both of those books are characterized by an inability to go into the dark side of Hebron, except regarding Palestinians; they are very settler-friendly, and gloss over much. But they are indisputably RS, contain important information, and therefore one does not hesitate to use them. The same goes for Røislien. No that is NOT here doctorate, read it again. And her expertise and employment is in computer cyber security. Nothing you wrote here addresses that her paper, which was published an non-peer reviewed and radical venue, is not bigoted as shown in by the example. Addess the core issue or admit she is 100% NPOV and paragraph is unsubstaniated hate mongering. As for your personal knowledge of the community, you have none, otherwise it would be obvious to you that the Hebron community is a mixture of different people and that consists of many people related to prior generations of Hebron's jewish population, despite the desire by the Arabs to kill them all. There are 70 families in Hebron. They are constantly pelted with rocks and under leathal threat, just becuause they are Jewish. Quoting what a few say on the street is disingenious at best. You think Bernie Sanders and Norman Finklestien are normal representations of Jewish thought and culture? ALL JUDIASM HAS AN IDEOLOGY OF MESHIANIC REDEMPTION. This is not a form of radicalism and it anti-semetic to use that as an excuse to hate Jews and to discrimenate against them in their homes, their history, their religion and there politics. As has already been pointed out, aside fromt he NPOV of the author, the Hebron Yeshiva, which you have auslted here, is 100% mainstream in the Jewish community and supported by every major Yeshiva in the World, from Lakewood to Yeshiva University to Bar Ilan and the Mir. this has been pointed out by facts and detail in previous areas. In fact, if we did, almost EVERY case you mention we can point out a NPOV author insupport of all those areas. When you look at the text you can SEE the author is a bigot, and the text is not done in a scholarly manner. It forms first a conclusion and then construction a proof with the selective use of interviews. You have here Jews who want to live in Hebron because it is their homeland and it is a mainstream accepted Mitzvot to live in Hebron. This does not make them radicals, it Makes them JEWS. Every year MILLIONS of Jews visit Hebron, even in bulletproof buses. So proposing that the desire to live in Hebron and professing a belief in the the coming of the Messhiah is core to Jewish believe for over 2 thousand years and will continue for another 2 thousand, if need be. The Chabad Organization is a radical orgnaization? Lubavatch Chabad own and lead much of the Hebron community and has since the 1800's. repeating to quote the text: §§"In the posted article in support for the bigoted and contradicted segment of this article being discussed, the paper starts out with this: In the West Bank city of Hebron the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still overshadows all activities. Despite the tension, friction, and violence that have become integral to the city’s everyday life, the Jewish Community of Hebron is expanding in numbers and geographical extent. Since the Six Day War, the community has attracted some of the most militant groups among the settlers in the West Bank, responsible for severe violence against Palestin- ians, including harassment, car bombs, and attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. Why do the members of the Jewish Community of Hebron wish to live and raise their children in such a violent setting? Using a series of interviews with members of the Jewish Community of He- bron and related settler communities in the period 2000–05, the article examines the ways the Jewish Community legitimizes its disputed presence. It reveals a deep religious belief, blended with intense distrust of and hatred toward the Palestinian population." The author is inaccurate in the core description. The community is NOT expanding in numbers of extent... it is ILLEGAL even for the children of the Jews who grew up in Hebron to live there. The community is by FAR not the most militant of the west bank settlers, although they are under lethal THREAT every day, and to show that Jews in Hebron after being murdered and targeted for assassination even until today, are both religious and suspicious of Palestinians is like proving water is wet. It is an outline for a bigoted thesis by a bigoted author incapable of a NPOV and sanctioned by "educational organizations" which are likewise bigots and incapable of a NPOV. BTW, to the original auther, the conflict doesn't overshadow ALL activities. It didn't stop the Palestinians from converting a major Jewish Yeshiva into a Mosque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I think it is clear now that this author is not qualified to have her work presented on Wikipedia and that she does not write with a NPOV. The paragraph in question must be removed. 166.84.1.2 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Nothing above, fraught with error, is relevant. We do not choose Reliable sources on the basis of whether they are 'neutral'. No sources are 'neutral'. We choose them according to credentials, the author's background, and the publication venue. The work in question fits these criteria. This is not a forum for unfocused rants. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) To REPEAT: Maybe it is possible that the defenders of this paragraph and of Røislien , Phd and expert can explain how this supposed expert on the middle east seems to be ignorant of the basic facts, didn't seem to know who the Oslo accords shaped Hebron, excuses events like the masacre of defenseless Jews in Hebron in 1929, where SHE blames on Jews in the same article, for wanting to pray at the Kotel in Jerusalem as an excuse for the pogrom, doesn't know the limits that have been imposed on Jewish growth in Hebron, fails to account for Ben Gurions support for Hebron settlement etc etc. When an authors perspective is skewed, there is always a reason too kill a few Jews. And she clearly implies this in paper. Her expertise is "Hanne Eggen Røislien (PhD) is a senior researcher with the Norwegian Armed Forces Cyber Defence and adjunct researcher with CSIS in Washington DC. Her current research focuses on cyber officers and information security culture". Here doctoral work was not on comparative religion, but is on a single paper that states that the IDF is fundamentally bigoted and starts with accusing the IDF of celebrating Rosh Hashona. NO institution of any substance would give this women a PhD, based on the work she did here. She studies the IDF and accuses the Jewish States Army of celebrating the Jewish New Year....?? The only means of defending what she wrote is to admit the reader who agrees with it, without criticism, is likewise prejudice. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I didn’t respond to the long earlier ‘tirades’ . :::: the objection is not a tirade and you owe everyone else an apology for saying that. above this last one, since we have had it before. The IP is evidently speaking on behalf of that community, now you owe 2 apologies since that is not an issue although a quick look shows my ip address from the us, and infact the others as well if not indeed a member of it. And the content is bewilderingly uninformed that is your opinion, and not a good one. even kids in kindergarten know the Talmudic writing began to be written from the first millenium C.E., not a ‘3000 year old Talmudic tradition.’ The complainant is so disattentive that he confuses the authoress with an author (‘In his previous work’) your no expert on talmud studies evidenty not that this detail addresses the issue. Your just throwing as many things you can in the air to hope domething sticks 'the Hebron Yeshiva is the same Yeshiva that the Arabs tried to kill everyone in 1929.' It isn’t. yes it is. There is nothing to discuss about this. Your factually wrong as we've interviewed dozens of such graduates and placed studentd there. Your just making stuff up Numerous testimonies note the historic break between the traditional Hebron yeshiva and the one refounded in that slaughtered community’s name, leading to much unease among the descendents of ther earlier community (pp.177-8. Confirmed by numerous RS) The screed accuses the IDF of being a fundamentalist organization. Wrong, she argues that aspects of Jewish tradition are fundamental to the IDF’s training. ‘Fundamentalist’ is one thing: ‘fundamental’ (basic) another. you couldn't read the first paragraph she wrote? 'To assert that the Yeshiva is a threat to Arab populations, which is what is being said in this paragraph, and which is in conflict with the rest of this article, is itself proof of the anti-Semitic nature of this paragraph, regardless of the sources.' the article cites the core community’s leader Michael Wilder as saying:’ They are (Hebron’s Palestinians in a minimalist reading) animals” p.178. This again is a Hebronite settler commonplace: suffice it to read the graffiti scrawled all over the place there. that is cherry picking and is not allowed in honest paper. She hss an opinion and then cherrypicks without context what she want. that is what bigots do 'The Article then claims, "The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of the incident on February 25, 1994, when Baruch Goldstein,an American-born settler and member of the illegal ultra- right Kach party, opened fire on Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of Abraham in the heart of Hebron,..." This is WRONG factually. The current protocol was born from the Oslo accord..' wrong no it is correct and then later talks against herself. .sowhat. Its even worse. She knows she is lieing. The authoress states (a) The division of Hebron into two zones, one Palestinian and one Israeli security zone (H1 and H2 respectively), is a result of the Hebron Protocol for Redployment signed on January 15, 1997, by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Likud government, at the time led by Benyamin Netanyahu.’ She is here alluding to the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron. The Oslo II Accord also postdated the 1994 massacre. Never everything you write is factually wrong, or totally unfocused and selective, but no one is obliged to waste their lives responding to all the details.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) maybe you can address the point that deaths of jews is cold stats, but deaths of arabs are described zs tragic crimes?. We await you explsnation. Meanwhile she is a npov... I stopped reading when you wrote:'the desire by the Arabs to kill them all.' That is literally the position of Hebron's rabbi Dov Lior. You are just spouting his projective psychology, the rationale for a thorough ethnic cleansing of Greater Israel of any one with 'Arab' blood, to dispatch them from their homeland to 'Arabia'. This is a courtesy note just to say I won't be replying to these ranting tirades any more.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) I find it impossible to read this IP's text without the phrase "incoherent rant" coming into my head. Nothing useful can come from responding to fanatics. On the basis of WP:ARBPIA3, the IP is not allowed to edit here at all anyway. Furthermore, WP:ARBPIA3 entitles us to enforce the judgement, which overrules normal talk page protocol. In my opinion, IP's further postings here can and should be immediately deleted. Zerotalk 23:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Your impressions not withstanding, please point out to me exactly were it says that you can lock up the talk section as you did. I believe you acted improperly, and I read the links you provided. If anything, those links support the position that the talk section should be locked up and furthermore emphasizes that when an author who can not conduct themselves in a __objective fashion__ then they can not be used as a source. Users who keep repeating POV rhetoric should be blocked from editing. This whole thing is about one paragraph. It is not about questioning the hostility of the two communities. It is not about the internal politics on either side of the cultural divide. It is not denying violence, Jews against Arabs and the reverse. It is about a paragraph that makes a leap from facts to making a broad accusation of an entire Jewish community that is unfounded. It has been established without a doubt that the paragraph is based on works from an author who is is not objective. And then the editor of the paragraph has now said that it is not necessary to have a NPOV. So where are we at now? Is there an objective truth or not? Or should the Jewish community just accept that since it is small and a minority that Wikipedia will always have a "consensus" that blame Jews for every problem, especially in places like Hebron, which has a long history of antisemitic political activity. We are looking at a paragraph that says that one of the mainstream and most beloved rabbis of the 20th century is a fundamentalist radical who fuels a deadly messianic cult. It is not right. I ask you to please remove the limitation on this talk area and that we should seek out more experts on this issue in order to settle the matter. Your Truly Reuvain Safir Mrbrklyn (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 'It has been established without a doubt that the paragraph is based on works from an author who is is not objective.' (a)a ranting IP made this statement. That any editor talking to himself can 'establish beyond doubt' that his own opinion is authoritative looks like a misappropriation of the doctrine of Papal infallibility into Wikipedia. (b)both the IP and yourself are wholly unfamiliar wiki practice, which does not require that sources be 'objective'. No sources are objective. To repeat to you what was said to that editor, sources must be reliably published and, optimally, come from qualified scholars, and these criteria have been met. (c) Apropos stacking a dozen or more images above the settlement section, this looks very odd to me. It is an open invitation to editors to get a similar number of images, of people caged, being shot, of empty streets with Israeli guards, of street checkpoints, women held at gunpoint, frisking, children with school satchels climbing through allies or being interrogated while going to school, etc.etc. I suggest they be removed and the issue discussed.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Besides which, most of them are not even good images. Zerotalk 11:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC) There are several policy issues here, not least of which WP:COI, in the sense this looks like a push by people connected with the settlement to (WP:PROMO) promote this particular enclave, though I may be wrong. (b) We have a long-standing practice of proportionate representation: the page is about Hebron, which has 2 distinct populations, about 200,000 Palestinians and 800 Jewish settlers. The stacking of a huge number of photos about the latters breaks this proportion, which was, before the edit, fairly balanced in terms, not of numbers, but historic significance for both communities. I had some others in mind, but my post-prandial digestive processes are interfering with my cerebral lucidity, as the blood drains down to mob and swab up the busy chemical traffic in my stomach.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Before we go any further, I want to be quite clear on something. Are you saying that I represent the Hebron Jewish Community? I live at 1580 east 19th Street Brooklyn, NY apartment 1E. My email is ruben@mrbrklyn.com and it is registered as this Registrant Name: RUBEN SAFIR Registrant Organization: NYLXS Registrant Street: 1580 East 19th Street Registrant City: BROOKLYN Registrant State/Province: New York Registrant Postal Code: 11230 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.7187151771 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: +1.231231234 Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: ruben@mrbrklyn.com Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry Admin Name: RUBEN SAFIR Admin Organization: NYLXS Admin Street: 1580 East 19th Street Admin City: BROOKLYN Admin State/Province: New York Admin Postal Code: 11230 Admin Country: US Admin Phone: +1.7187151771 Admin Phone Ext: Admin Fax: +1.231231234 Admin Fax Ext: and its been registered since before 9-11. I'm a registered pharmacist in this state. Please either explain how I am a representitive of the Hebron Community, or retract that statement, which you have made about several people several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Also, Nishidani, I am not appreciating your condescending tone. This is not my first go around with wikipedia. Between the two of us, you are far more partial than I am on this section. All one needs to do is look at your wikipedia page, which is all about Palestinian rights, and my home page which is all about Brooklyn, Fish and my Grandmother. So lets clear the deck of the snide remarks on your part so we can begin to hash out what happened to the deleted segments on the paragraph in question, especially that of Jeppiz, whose quote was shortened. If I'm wrong on this, correct me and I'll apologize. I'll say this for you, kid, I came to you like a mensch and your reply was disrespectful. Also, put my photographs back, please. They belong on the page, and I happen to be a fairly decent photographer. If your going to accuse an entire community of messianic fervor that encourage violence in order to bring the end of the world, you can at least have few pics of the core principle locations and participants of the dispute. If you want to reduce the number, we can negotiate. Mrbrklyn (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Mrbrklyn: it was RolandR who removed the photographs (Not Nishidani). And I agree with RolandR: all those photos were too much. There are several hundred photos about Hebron on "commons"; we should choose photos according to what is representative of the whole of Hebron. And Jeppiz full quote is still here. (We don´t need to repeat it, and repeat it.) Also, if you could bring any source (which fulfils WP:RS) which questions Røisliens qualifications, then please bring them. But just saying "she is biased" does not count for much on Wikipedia. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC) It is absolutely immaterial who you really are, or claim to be. What is quite clear is that, under the recent arbitration ruling, you are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", which includes this talk page as well as the article itself. I advise you to observe this restriction and cease editing here or elsewhere in breach of the ruling, in order to avoid further editing restrictions being placed on your account. RolandR (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Fascinating. Under what basis do you draw that conclusion? Just under general, I don't like what he says and therefor don't post anything here which is related to the topic? What specific guideline did I trespass? Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Due to the large number of disruptive accounts editing articles such as this one, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was made policy. Your account does not meet the requirements to edit this article or the talk page, you should be grateful we've responded to you so far despite the length, lack of focus, and bias of your comments. Sepsis II (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) What are you talking about? My account has been up since 2007 and I've nearly a thousand edits on wikipedia, most before most readers were old enough to find a keyboard. And this is not even my first account. I lost the password to my initial account back in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) What does this read? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Neutrality_and_sources It says, bluntly that all sources must be NPOV. I am certainly not bias. So far the only thing I've posted is on a specific paragraph, and the validity of the NPOV of an author based on her text as laying out here by other editors. That and objecting to being categorized improperly. I think this needs to be taken to arbitration. Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (a)I'm not interested in your identity. That's a private thing you keep to yourself. (b)I wrote of the appearance that 'This (is) a push by people' on the basis of. (i)24.38.3.28 (ii)96.57.23.82 (iii)166.84.1.1 (iv)Mrbrklyn The diversity of IP addresses which I didn't care to check suggested a plurality of identities, even if the prose, and the numerous grammatical and spelling errors suggested the same person. If I'm was wrong, it is not material to the issue. You yourself gave the impression several people agreed with you, when in fact it emerges only you alone are asserting the view stated by these several addresses. (c)You misread the linked policy. The sources you cite do not say 'bluntly that all sources must be NPOV.' It is within your right to take this to arbitration. I think the situation quite clear, and justifies the removal.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Jeppiz did agree with him actually, but his reasoning was also flawed and violated BLP. I see no reason for removing the source or adding any more photos of settlers to an article about Hebron. Sepsis II (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Jeppiz's note was the reason I added my remarks, rather than ignore the complaint. He is a very independent-minded and fair editor. If he had that corroborative impression, then obviously the complaint itself demanded close examination. I saw now BLP violation there at all. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC) You have continually made projections about the IP addresses used in this conversation. First, they were all part of the community, despite that they are from the US. And now, they are all sock puppets based on your expert analysis. This is just another attempt to stifle discussion about the use of NPOV material to create a foundation for a paragraph that is repugnant. But just for the record, 96.57.23.82 is mine and it used or shared with about 18 friends and family in the building. I've been warned by other users that editors protecting this biased paragraph will now attack the ip address. I find it hard to believe that you guys would stoop that low.... right guys? Now as to the paragraph, honestly from a point of logic, not much more can be said. The author is biased. And your saying it is allowed to be presented without even a commentary. And as for other writings, we have a policy representation of facts according to population. but the Jewish population keeps being reduced, century after century, because they are being killed... It seems like a nice tight bow that has been produced. Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 'I've been warned by other users that editors protecting this biased paragraph will now attack the ip address.' Enough said.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Maybe so. You know, Nishidani, I never had much interest in the Jewish community in Hebron. When I go to Israel, I spend most of my time in the Jacuzzi at the Artist Colony Inn in Tzfat. I was happy to see Machpelah as a tourist, and that was about it. But after reading all this and the response here, I have to admit that you have convinced me that they serve a vital moderating influence on the region. Do you have an email address for that Rabbi, David Wilder? Mrbrklyn (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Reuvain Well, you were lucky to get a better reception than these Jews who had the misfortune to be harassed and pushed around by Noam Federman, serving, as you say, 'a vital moderating influence on the region.' David Wilder is not a rabbi. If you want to contact him check his Facebook page.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) That is it? That is all you got on Federman? I've seen worse pushing on the London underground when a bunch of Muslim youths were harassing a muslin teenage girl in a short skirt. I had to physically intervene before they stripped off her skirt.... Now that was nasty. This dancing around by Federman was just some theater. You must have better footage than that? No carefully edited can throwing something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hebron Pictures

So this is a picture of Hebron I took about a month ago of the nice clean modern new city http://images.mrbrklyn.com/israel_01_2016/IMG_5863.JPG?width=2200

Would you say this is representative of the city currently and would it be worth having on in the Article?

Mrbrklyn (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, highrise. Looks alot different to 1995 (which was when I went there....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RonaldR makes up his own rules I love that RonaldR is just making up his own decisions and rules here, and continues to be a rougue admin. If you can't agree with someone, step on their speach and way you can. It is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC) I see there is a history of this problem.... 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Mrbrklyn (talk) http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/slate-has-discovered-why-you-shouldnt-use-wikipedia-as-a-source/ Wikipedia is amazing. But it’s become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess. No really, you shouldn’t use it. Yes, it’s free, but: Given the anarchy at work, it’s impressive that article quality should reach as high as it can, even if it’s still not reliable. Yet the nature of the beast makes quality control inconsistent. Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on “Cultural Marxism,” which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from Lukács to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor. Rather than folding it into the narrower but deeper “Critical theory” page, the editor replaced the page with one on the “Frankfurt school conspiracy theory,” which obsessively and somewhat offensively dwells on the Jewish presence in these schools of thought and the right-wing and borderline anti-Semitic conspiracy theories around them. (The reason the editor dwelled on these irrelevant conspiracy theories instead of the thinkers themselves is unknown, but the changes are certainly troubling.) After bewildered complaints, Wales restored the original page and asked for an extra week’s debate on the sudden and drastic shift, sparking outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change. Whether the change will win out will be determined less by truth and more by the stubbornness and comparative popularity of the editors and the administrators backing them. In spite of all this, Wikipedia remains a seminal, important project, precisely because it has tried—and in many ways accomplished—something that’s never been done before. … Actually, it has been done before. It’s called suppression of factual information, anti-Semitism, and the fact that anarchy generally produces more anarchy. I think that before blocking more discussion, you should review this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.single.html Quote: The problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them. This attitude comes from the fact that some of these intruders are indeed trolls, partisans, paid hacks, or incompetents. Many, however, are not dangerous and run screaming from Wikipedia after receiving a hostile welcome. It is common to accuse a new editor of being a “single-purpose account,” or SPA, focused on one particular issue with a non-neutral point of view. Of course, most new editors look like SPAs at first, so the derogatory term frequently functions as a way to delegitimize newcomers. “Many newcomers experience being bashed and disparaged without good cause,” Jemielniak told me. “Wikipedians are used to hunting trolls and fighting them. It desensitizes them.” You can start to see why Wikipedia has trouble recruiting new editors and how this process may actually select for stubborn and implacable editors. Unfortunately, since the number of longtime, productive editors has continued to drop over the years to 31,000 last year, almost half of what it was in 2007, this problem is becoming more pressing. The drop increases pressure to retain other long-standing editors, even incredibly acerbic ones, reinforcing the fortress mentality. This attitude also manifests itself in Wikipedians’ general indifference or even hostility to outside opinion. Jemielniak writes that Wikipedia’s “reliance on internal normative regulation naturally exacerbates the tendency to reject all forms of external validations”—or, as he told me, “Wikipedians are allergic to all forms of control.” The Gender Gap Task Force case shows that as long as the Arbitration Committee doesn’t mind that its judgment will alienate women and hurt Wikipedia’s public image, no one else can force them to action. Mrbrklyn (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Okay, See WP:NOTFORUM. Further essays here on your impressions regarding Wikipedia will be reverted, as not germane to the talk page, which is reserved for discussing editorial issues on page content.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Is (sic) the talk pages also restricted? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC) To repeat, see WP:NOTFORUM.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just impression

Well done, guys, well done. 1929 massacre doesn't deserve even a specified paragraph (shouldn't catch eye, right?). But the statements about problems of local businesses from more than 10-years old sources deserve even two paragraphs, and a special graphical representation: photo of garbage net. Be proud. -- A man without a country (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And of course the descriptive labels of the various powers taking control of Hebron over the centuries does vary slightly. Those who are in line with the neutral pov of the editors can 'take control' or 'take', but when it comes to Israel it is 'occupy'. Orwell would be proud of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.42.181 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/lot/6093/4nisa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111022800/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929100824/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702434796&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702434796&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011002839/http://cpt.org/publications/history.php to http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111022800/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152784857&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816165944/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1145961357122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024142822/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c7d7b824004ff5c585256ae700543ebc?opendocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/c7d7b824004ff5c585256ae700543ebc?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021160936/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=820752002 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=820752002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230634/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

The first line of the first actual paragraph contains an error. Hebron is not a city in Israel. It's a city in Palestine or, if the site prefers this language, the Palestinian Territories. 73.250.177.191 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Shame on us all for letting this be in the article for over a week. Fixed now. Huldra (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not Hebron is a city in Israel or Palestine is highly controversial. Palestine (even if it's called the Palestinian Territories) is not recognized by the United States, Canada, most Western European countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and Israel claims that territory too. Under Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia should be neutral, and not take sides in this conflict. The fact that Hebron is described at the beginning of this article, I believe, violates Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikier1010 (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hebron is a Palestinian city, and is not in Israel. There is nothing controversial in stating that.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There are people out there who would tell you that Hebron is an Israeli city, and many who would tell you that Hebron is a Palestinian city. Israel claims Hebron, just as the Palestinian Authority does. What makes the Palestinian claim the only valid one? By definition, this is a controversial matter. I understand that you believe that Hebron is a Palestinian city, but that does not mean that everybody does, and I fail to see how it does not violate Wikipedia:NPOV to take a side and call it a Palestinian city. Wikier1010 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I was shocked to see such a blatant POV violation in the very opening of this article. How on earth are we supposed to be able to trust Wikipedia if this sort of thing is allowed to stay in, & no one is allowed to fix it? FlaviaR —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph slightly, so it just says that it's a city in the West Bank, and the second largest claimed by Palestine. I think that now everything is a fact that cannot be disputed. Wikier1010 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Wikier1010, Firstly, you don't have 500 edits, so you should not be editing this article. (Please read that big yellow sign at the top of this page.) Secondly, you added "claimed by the State of Palestine"....as if that was disputed. It isn't. Israel occupies Hebron, yes, but it has never annexed it, or "claimed it" in any legal way. Huldra (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured that it would block me from editing if I wasn't allowed (I'm using a mobile device and there's no yellow sign anywhere for me). Sorry, and thanks to whoever fixed that.

Anyway, Israel claims the entire West Bank, which includes Hebron (if you look at the official maps provided by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the entire West Bank is within the Israeli borders, indicating that the government regards the territory as theirs), as does Palestine, and I stand by my wish for this to be edited to reflect the controversy instead of clearly agreeing with the belief that Hebron is a Palestinian state. As with all Wikipedia articles, this entire article should contain only information which is completely factual - meaning there are no valid alternative viewpoints to the information presented in the article. Wikier1010 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Despite the maps, Israel does not regard the West Bank (except East Jerusalem) as part of its territory. There has never been an act of annexation even though many Knesset members would like one. Israel uses the fact that the West Bank is under Belligerent Occupation to run a separate court system and many other different administrative systems there. Besides that, even if Israel claimed sovereignty in the West Bank (which it doesn't) we would present the opinion of the entire rest of the world first and only mention Israel's position later. Zero^talk 02:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

The dairy company in Hebron is spelled Al Juneidi, not as spelled in the article. Hennesseystealth (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's spelled al-Junaidi in other parts of the world. We have to respect a WP:WORLDVIEW. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done: There is no such thing as a global perspective on company names (but for the record if you search for it you can find "Al Juneidi" elsewhere too). We aren't entitled to claim that a company can't spell its own name. See its webpage for that. Zero^talk 01:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061017225650/http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/YAOI-6UN95C?OpenDocument to http://www2.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/YAOI-6UN95C?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923231045/http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/History-Derby-sister-city-Hebron-Palestine/story-20973895-detail/story.html to http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/History-Derby-sister-city-Hebron-Palestine/story-20973895-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105174717/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/opt_prot_aic_hebron_dec_2004.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/opt_prot_aic_hebron_dec_2004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115053903/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/_PCBS/census/phc_97/heb_t1.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/_PCBS/census/phc_97/heb_t1.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016234433/http://www.hebron.edu/en/about-hu/hu-founder.html to http://www.hebron.edu/en/about-hu/hu-founder.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ru/originals/2013/03/palestinian-industry-suffers-cheap-imports.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105174049/http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2247 to http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Kiriath-Arba

Joshua 14 says the original name of Hebron was Kiriath-Arba - before conquest by Joshua. It is not mentioned anywhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.22.165 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It's already mentioned under the History (Canaanite period) section.Davidbena (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Damascus

Icewhiz, you mind not making the lead of this article one more place you are fighting this fight? Where Damascus stands in a list of holy places for Muslims has zero relevance to this article, and putting it in the lead is asinine. nableezy - 04:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The lede of this article should not contain a falseshood - specifically we can not say that "Islam regards it as one of the four holy cities" - when multiple source claim otherwise. I am OK with "some Muslims" - however the Hebron specific refs need to be trimmed, and some refs for other sites should be added.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I agree it should not contain as fact something that is disputed, but there is no need for bringing competing claims here, especially to the lead. nableezy - 04:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

due weight

Icewhiz, you duplicated nearly in its entirety one paragraph from a I think 29 paragraph article on a 100 page report and claim that it is the context for the report? I intend to correct that WP:DUE violation shortly. nableezy - 08:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Also well done on the subtle POV changes from the source, changing Haaretz describing slapping a settler boy to a Jewish boy. nableezy - 08:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No - I summarized the paragraph as "which had been the focus of negative attention due to incidents in which its employees were filmed slapping a Jewish boy and puncturing the tires of a car belonging to a Jewish resident" - a clause in a sentence. Haaretz also mentions the controversial nature of TIPH in an additional paragraph. That this year old confidential report was leaked at the end of 2018 is also of some relevance. The source you are citing for this leaked report considered it due to mention the rather obviously relevant context of TIPH being embroiled in scandal. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

To mention sure, but not well poison as you did. I moved the criticism to where it is relevant. Embroiled in scandal is a bit hysterical. Theres nobody else here to impress, you can dial it down just a notch. I mean its up to you obviously. nableezy - 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The scant secondary coverage of this anonymous leak - [1] has - "Netanyahu has threatened to boot the group after incidents in which observers were seen fighting with settlers" in its 3 paragraph summary. One should question whether an anonymous leak is DUE at all - but if we are to include, the context of TIPH facing its mandate being terminated due to its observers fighting with settlers - is clearly required. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you question whether or not a report by the TIPH is DUE at all? A. That is not the context of the report. Please stop making things up. Per Haaretz: Late in 2017, TIPH produced one of the most significant pieces of work since its establishment: A report looking back on its 20 years of work, highlighting problems and patterns its members have identified. Im sorry this group produced a report saying Israel is a serial abuser of human rights. Like honestly, you have my sympathy in the matter. However, it has nothing to do with the right wing of the most right wing government in Israels history disliking the foreigners documenting those serial abuses of human rights in 2018. Because, as I think you know, 2017 is before 2018. What happened in 2018 by definition cannot be the context of what happened in 2017. Like your comment is the context of this one. This one cannot, by definition, be the context of your comment. I cant say you replied to my comment in your comment that preceded mine. You get it? Right? Oh shoot, I almost forgot B. That you are finding coverage of the coverage demonstrates that it is DUE weight to include. nableezy - 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Brief coverage in a media roundup. Haaretz is the primary source of the leak. The leak occurred in 2018 - so 2018 is relevant. Furthermore, the report was authored at the end of 2017, and one of the documented attacks by TIPH personnel on Jewish property was in July 2017 - this came to light later (and the person involved fled the country when it did[2]) - however it is quite possible that this person or the TIPH member who physically assaulted a Jewish boy ([3]) (TIPH being a 64 member force) were involved in writing the report. In any event - sources covering this anonymous leak (or a report intended to be private per TIPH's mandate) - see fit to mention this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is not about the leak. Its about the report. See no reason to reply to any of the OR about OMG the settler boy who was slapped, well maybe the person who slapped that little settler was involved in writing this report, so (loses breathe) we have to (pants repeatedly) include some good old well poisoning to a report that has nothing to do with that. Again, I moved the material to where it is appropriate. nableezy - 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also, isnt writing about a person "fleeing the country", "attacks on Jewish property", and "physically assaulted a Jewish boy", arent those violations of your expansive reading of WP:BLPCRIME, seeing as there is no conviction for any of these crimes? Or does that only apply to people who murder Palestinian children by lighting them on fire? nableezy - 15:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Swiss government (who sent this TIPH member) offered its official apology - "The TIPH observer was recalled by the Swiss government, Switzerland’s ambassador to Israel, Jean-Daniel Ruch, said in a letter of apology to the leaders of the Jewish community of Hebron."[4]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont see a conviction there, or any mention of any property crime conviction. nableezy - 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Lie in first sentence of article.

There is no such thing as a "State of Palestine." All the sources are unreliable because they are Arab propaganda. Hebron is a Jewish city, not "Palestinian." The Pallys are illegal settlers and invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldomenu (talk • contribs) 01:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

Jordanian rule ....Hebron notables, headed by mayor Muhamad 'Ali al-Ja'bari ( should read mayor, Sheikh Mohammad Ali Al-Ja'bari) Israeli occupation ....Sheik Farid Khader heads the Ja’bari tribe ( omit Sheikh [he isn't], should read 'a member of the Ja'bari tribe')He does NOT head the tribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Hebron ( please correct titles) Sheikh Mohammad Ali Al-Ja'bari Sheikh Sulaiman Ja'bari 79.177.21.55 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC) 79.177.21.55 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Settler harassment" is not an "Israeli security measure"

The article states: "The Palestinian population in H2 has greatly declined due to the impact of Israeli security measures which include extended curfews, strict restrictions on movement,[206] the closure of Palestinian commercial activities near settler areas and settler harassment. [emphasis mine]"

While I accept, of course, that harassment of Palestinians by Israeli/Jewish settlers certainly exists, I don't think it should be included in a list of "Israeli security measures," because that wording can be construed to indicate that the harassment is officially sanctioned by the Israeli government, or that it is carried out as a "security measure" rather than as an act of aggression.

Parenthetically, I'm also wondering about the use of "due to" instead of "because of," the missing comma after "Israeli security measures" (the restrictive clause "which include..." should be set off by commas), and the missing Oxford comma after "...near settler areas." I know that per the Guidance on applying the Manual of Style, Wikipedia has no preference on the use of the Oxford comma except that its use or non-use be consistent, but the rest of the article has multiple Oxford commas (e.g., "Jews, Christians, and Muslims all venerate..."; "narrow, winding streets, flat-roofed stone houses, and old bazaars"; "Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai"; "tightened restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in H2, closed their vegetable and meat markets, and banned Palestinian cars on Al-Shuhada Street"; and more.

AviJacobson (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, the sentence is poorly organized. I'll try to fix it. Zero^talk 01:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero. There's now a missing "of" after "because." (Should be "The Palestinian population in H2 has greatly declined because the impact of....") Can you please fix this as well? --AviJacobson (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Turner demographics

There is something evidently wrong in the Turner 1820 figures. 1817 gives 500, Turner has in three years this redoubling, and then 1824 has 60 households, which would if one allowed 8 per unit close to 500.

I.e. a passing traveler has created a huge bump that, were it accurate, would imply some extraordinary influx of Jews doubling the population and then disappearing, all in six years.

Whatever, any of those figures that do not come from secondary, rather than as here, primary sources, should be supplied either with a ? or some paragraph information. I don't think primary source travelogues have any business in supplying historical demographic figures unless we obtain them also from appropriate secondary sources on demographics.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hebron, Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hebron, Israel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Huldra (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No weather station/climate information?

Why is such a sizable and historically important ancient city bereft of any weather or climate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.142.199 (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

"A violent episode occurred on 2 May 1980, when 6 yeshiva students died, on the way home from Sabbath prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in a grenade and firearm attack.[294]" I think the correct wording of this sentence should be "...6 Yeshiva students were "killed"..."

A mention should be made about the future of Hebron under the Trump peace plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.196.169.7 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

William Thomson and dubious edits

First Shrike cited Thomson via Auerbach while missing the "uncommonly knowledgable American visitor" who Auerbach cites (on the same page that Thomson is introduced) as giving completely different numbers in the same year. Then Onceinawhile cited Thomson (correctly) that he estimated a total population of 7000-8000 in 1838. Note that Thompson was writing about 20 years later. Thompson says that the total "remains about what it was then", but he does not say that the number of Jews remained about the same. He writes in the present tense: "There are some seven hundred Jews". A pedantic reading is that he was stating the number of Jews at the time of writing. Of course that might not be his intended meaning, but there is insufficient information here to tell. Choosing one interpretation over another is OR and for that reason I don't think we should state 700 for 1838 in Thomson's name. In volume 1 of his book (p167), Thomson gives the Jewish population of Hebron as 600. We should include Robinson who, unlike Thomson, remains a standard scholarly source for this time period. Zero^talk 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this very elegant deconstruction. I struggled with exactly the point you describe, and your solution is a significant improvement. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Robinson:[5] "The following data for the population of Hebron were given us by Elias, who had the best opportunity of knowing the truth. According to him, there were at the time fifteen hundred taxable Muhammedans, and forty-one Jews who paid taxes, besides some two hundred Jews who had European protections. He himself was the only Christian in Hebron ; nor are \ there any others in the whole district. Not less than seven hundred and fifty Muslims had been taken as soldiers, and about five hundred were killed during the rebellion of 1834. He estimated the whole population at ten thousand souls; which is perhaps not very much larger than the true number."

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This "Elias" is earlier described as "Elias of Damascus (Elyas esh-Shamy) the only Christian resident in Hebron". Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Edward Robinson

Robinson & Smith write "The following data for the population of Hebron were given us by Elias, who had the best opportunity of knowing the truth. According to him, there were at the time fifteen hundred taxable Muhammedans, and forty-one Jews who paid taxes, besides some two hundred Jews who had European protections. He himself was the only Christian in Hebron; nor are there any others in the whole district. Not less than seven hundred and fifty Muslims had been taken as soldiers, and about five hundred were killed during the rebellion of 1834. He estimated the whole population at ten thousand souls; which is perhaps not very much larger than the true number." This is in volume 2 of "Biblical Researches in Palestine..in the year 1838", on page 453 of the 1841 edition and page 88 in the 1856 edition. The book "The Jews in Palestine 1800–1882" by Tudor Parfitt, page 49, interprets this as 200 Ashkenazi and 205 Sephardi — 41 became 205 because "Jews who pay taxes" only includes heads of households. Zero^talk 10:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Haha, two people adding the same quote at the same time... Zero^talk 10:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am proud to have beaten you by seven minutes! Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My fault for pausing to have some ice-cream and peaches after typing but before saving. But you didn't get the ice-cream and peaches. Zero^talk 11:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There's still a point to fix, dear boffins. I.e. we have

In 1842, it was estimated that about 400 Arab and 120 Jewish families lived in Hebron, the latter having been diminished in number following the destruction of 1834.[238]

The text above states

Not less than seven hundred and fifty Muslims had been taken as soldiers, and about five hundred were killed during the rebellion of 1834

As it stands, therefore, 1834 had devastating results on both communities, but the devastation of 1834 is made to affect Jews alone. Per NPOV, we should add something to the effect 'that the former (Arabs) had their numbers reduced by conscription (750) and death in the rebellion (500) . . .' The edit is difficult because the original does not appear to clarify if the 750/500 overlap: of the 750 500 were killed in battle? or does it refer to two different realities (soldiers taken away), local men killed in the rebellion in Hebron. Anyone willing to fix it. It is above all a NPOV issue of balance.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

History > Canaanite period Change "In Biblical lore they are represented as descendants of the Nephilim" to "In the Bible, they are represented as descendants of the Nephilim." because using the phrase "In Biblical lore" shows bias. PaulBammel (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor PaulBammel:  Not done for now: such a change will require a consensus of editors to implement. Please establish this consensus before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Demographics

Year	Muslims	Christians	Jews	Total	Notes and sources
1538	749 h	7 h	20 h	776 h	(h = households), Cohen & Lewis
1774			300		Azulai
1817			500		Israel Foreign Ministry
1820			1,000		William Turner
1824			60 h		(40 h Sephardim, 20 h Ashkenazim), The Missionary Herald
1832	400 h		100 h	500 h	(h = households), Augustin Calmet, Charles Taylor, Edward Robinson
1837			423		Montefiore census
1838			700		Israel Foreign Ministry
1839	1295 f	1 f	241		(f = families), David Roberts
1840			700–800		James A. Huie
1851	11,000		450		Official register
1851			400		Clorinda Minor
1866			497		Montefiore census
1875	8,000-10,000		500		Albert Socin
1875	17,000		600		Hebron Kaymakam
1881			1,000-1,200		PEF Survey of Palestine
1881			800	5,000	The Friend
1890			1,490		Jewish Encyclopedia
1895			1,400
1906			1,100	14,000	(690 Sephardim, 410 Ashkenazim), Jewish Encyclopedia
1922	16,074	73	430	16,577	1922 census of Palestine
1929			700		Israel Foreign Ministry
1930			0		Israel Foreign Ministry
1931	17,277	109	134	17,532	1931 census of Palestine
1945	24,400	150	0	24,560	Village Statistics, 1945
1961				37,868	Jordanian census
1967	38,073	136		38,348	Israeli census
1997	n/a	n/a	530	119,093	Palestinian census
2007	n/a	n/a	500	163,146	Palestinian census

The above table is presently in the article. My suggestion: we remove the ones which only have people of one religion counted. They are not official counts, and as such, rather unreliable, (eg, could include people only temporary in Hebron), Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No. This is a transparent attempt to remove the counts of jews (having the effect of removing 16 such counts, and no counts of muslims). There's nothing unreliable, per se, about a count of a specific religion. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Huldra: I don't agree with your proposal since it would lose some important counts like the Montefiore censuses. Unlike most travelers who just looked around or asked the locals to guess, Montefiore listed all the Jews he could find person by person. Some of his lists still exist. On the other hand, we should lose the propaganda from MFA, which has no expertise and no motive to give a balanced account. Even without making up numbers, it is very easy to give a false picture by cherry-picking. Look at this compilation of numbers for Jerusalem; Hebron would be only slightly better. Zero^talk 01:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, We regularly use partisan sources like ARIJ. It clearly attributed I don't see any problem Shrike (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's attributed to a source that is not a research organisation and has well-known lack of reliability. It stands out out here as the only source of numbers that is not an original source and doesn't even say what original source its numbers come from. Where does 700 in 1838 come from? Did MFA exist then? Zero^talk 23:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Several other sources are neither a research organisation nor have a particular reputation for reliability. Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible? C'mon. Nor are other sources all original sources. And on top of that , what is sourced to the MFA is actually from the Jewish Virtual Library, which credits 4 other sources, other than the MFA. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't check whether those other sources have the population figures. Also, I'd be perfectly happy to lose Calmert's dictionary. Zero^talk 01:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Our policy is WP:SAYWHERE. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You really need to think of something useful to write. I checked all the sources listed by JVL the only one containing more than the modern 500 is an article published by MFA which states it was provided by the Government Press Office and IDF Spokesman's Office. Funny, really. Zero^talk 14:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can't be civil, I don't see any point engaging with you further . Get consensus for any change you wish to make to this long -standing version -at the moment there is no such consensus for ether the change you want to make , or for Huldra's suggestion. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

An extraordinary comment, given your own behavior elsewhere. I think Shrike’s point is fair re some notable counts being lost. I suggest we remove only those where the identity of the census taker is unknown. The American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise’s Jewish Virtual Library, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, are not Reliable Sources for historical data. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this the point in the discussion where you tell me to "switch on my brain", hypocrite? There's no policy based reason for your suggestion, and I disagree with it. You are misrepresenting consensus with regards to JVL. I suggest you take the time to read what WP:RSNP says about it: "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That entry was added by a couple of newish editors a few months ago.[6] It doesn't reflect the discussions I remember seeing at WP:RS, and it doesn't reflect the dozens of times I have found propaganda and other falsehoods on that website. It may well be reliable for broader Jewish history, but for anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is not reliable. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. You may not substitute your personal opinion for Wikipedia consensus, and don't misrepresent the latter. And you continue to mislead in your last comment - ToThAc is an editor with nearly 9000 edits who has been here for at least 3 years. Not even remotely "Newish" .JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I will do so. That paragraph is not at all representative of consensus. I just read the WP:RSN archives on it. The paragraph at WP:RSNP is an inaccurate summary of the archives. I will open a discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing but scholarly sources, where at least one can check what estimates are based on, are acceptable here, and I concur with the view that 'The American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise’s Jewish Virtual Library, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, are not Reliable Sources for historical data.' Any glance at the large jumps in figures, up and down, over brief periods (examine the 1820s) that are totally devoid of an historical/sociological context to explain and contextualize the wild swings in reported data, will tell anyone with a minimum of historical understanding that these are virtually useless.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's funny. Using this logic, we should throw out the numbers based on the PEF, too. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What's your point, attempting to be silly or flashing an unfamiliarity with the PEF? By the way, the figures are somewhat misleading because the townships named strictly speaking refer to households cut off from the circumambient countryside, though the nexus between the two and often proximity was extremely close. The Hebron township was a centre for 52 villages, some virtually next door, where the Muslim population was equally dense, while Jews did not inhabit these contiguous villages. Secondly there's something wrong about the 1945 figure. There were two Jews in Hebron who remained after 1936, the magnificent Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra and his son Yosef. They only left the town in late 1947. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is you are making a ridiculous suggestion, which would rule out the vast majority of the sources, including the ones that you presumably support like the PEF. Read the given page of the PEF study, it has similar wild swings in reported data, provides no historical/sociological context that attempt to explain the wild swings, etc... JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'your point'. It is either one or the other of the two interpretations I gave of it. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You asked "What's your point", above. I answered your question, in detail. Thanks for confirming you are not interested in discussion. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm interested in intelligent discussion by competent editors on problematical issues. There are several here. This is a work place, not an internet pastime for mucking about. Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attack is noted, as is the lack of any substantial argument. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

He made a very clear and substantial argument. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you think so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Estimates can be divided into three types: (A) those based on actual counting, such as official censuses and Montefiore's counts; (B) estimates made by general respected travelers or authorities who visited at the time of the estimate; (C) estimates of no known origin or from barely known travelers. I propose we use all of (A), a fair selection of (B) and none of (C). Zero^talk 05:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. A good example is the James A. Huie reference to 700-800. That is not his estimate and he doesn't say where he got it from; it seems likely he took it from William Thomson's book. It adds nothing to our table as does not reflect an additional count. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Eliminate C.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The tables at Demographic history of Jerusalem deal with this issue well. We only have a line where we can point to the "original source". Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, lets restart; what should go into "C) estimates of no known origin or from barely known travelers"? Besides 1840 James A. Huie, what about the 1817 Israel Foreign Ministry? I don't see any proper source for that? Lets start collecting potential removals Huldra (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)  :

• 1817 Israel Foreign Ministry
• 1840 James A. Huie
• 1890 Jewish Encyclopedia

Hebron glass

When it comes to the 1833 report about Hebron glass, I would instead suggest using the "C.J. Irby and J. Mangles visited a glass lamp factory in Hebron in 1818, and were told the lamps were exported to Egypt."<ref>Irby and Mangles, 1823, p. [https://archive.org/stream/travelsinegypta01barkgoog#page/n396/mode/1up 344]</ref> (taken from the Hebron glass article)

Irby and Mangles actually visited and saw the glassworks; I suspect both "The Weekly Visitor" and Sears based their info on actual travellers in the area (ie, they did not visit Hebron themselves(?) Huldra (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

Can it be mentioned under 'Religious Traditions' that Sarah was buried at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the burial cave and land from the Ephron son of Zoar in the presence of the Hittite elders? Source: Genesis 23 1-20 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2023&version=NIV Thanks for your time! Yoshimitsu89 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)