Talk:Hebron Hills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misplaced on Google Maps[edit]

On Google Maps the icon for this Mount Hebron article is displayed near Mt Everest in the Himalaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.188.57.167 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—— Still erroneously misplaced (or mythologically placed) as of 2013/10/01. 76.184.137.251 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016: Still misplaced. Is there any way to fix this?--Kernpanik (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text is the wrong way![edit]

Something is wrong with this page! Look at the text. --EivindJohnsen (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hebron[edit]

I've now added a 2nd source, in addition to the one ignored by User:Nickhh, this one explicitly saying "Kibbutz Lahav, located in the western foothills of Mount Hebron in Israel.". It's no shame to be ignorant about the geography of distant regions, but to edit war exposing such ignorance is not a great idea. NoCal100 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Nickhh (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree, why do you keep reverting? I've provided 2 references for the statement that it is in Israel as well as the West Bank, one of them from an academic publication that explicitly says "the western foothills of Mount Hebron in Israel". it is not about what I "believe" or what you believe, but about what we can source to reliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cut the bullshit, guy. You found an archaeological paper which incidentally and mistakenly refers to Mount Hebron as part of Israel and you really want to pretend this overrides 99% of all maps and atlases ever? Mount Hebron, as you know perfectly well, is in the West Bank, an area occupied but not annexed or even claimed by Israel. This is just low-level harrassment (viz. Jayjg's sanctimonious report at WP:AN3RR) <eleland/talkedits> 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mt Hebron is a geographical region which is both in the West Bank, and in Israel. There are numerous Israeli communities there - including Kibbutz Lahav, Meitar and Lehavim . I've provided 2 references for this, and I'm not about to rely on the opinionated assertions of a Wikipedia editor, fresh off a two week long block for incivility (which continues here, BTW), to override what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you shut up with the WikiPolitics. It's in the West Bank. You know it, I know it. "Communities" are irrelevant. Look at a map. <eleland/talkedits> 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please *try* to remain civil. I have looked at a map, and I've physically been to Lahav and the Yatir Forest. They are located, as my references say, in the foothills of Mt Hebron, in Israel. Perhaps you are confusing the city of Hebron, which is indeed in the WB, with Mount Hebron, which is quite a large geographical area. NoCal100 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The foothills of Mt Hebron" is no more "Mt Hebron" than "the backyard of my house" is "my house." <eleland/talkedits> 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and there's a 2nd reference as well, describing the Yatir forest. You are not familiar with the geography, that's no shame, but not an excuse to pontificate here in an uncivil way, either. NoCal100 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept "Mount Hebron ... in Judea, almost entirely within the West Bank?" <eleland/talkedits> 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to elide what reliable sources say, that it is also partly in Israel? NoCal100 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a 3rd reference for this, again, from an academic source: [1] - note the date of when the forest was planted. NoCal100 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not support your conclusion. There is a label "Hebron Mountains", but it is entirely within the West Bank. The Yatir Forest is entirely within Israel. Nowhere does the source say that they overlap. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I've protected this article for a few days in order to allow the editors here to resolve their differences without getting into trouble. Please try to do so. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "differences." There is one guy trolling. Look at a map. Sensible editors shouldn't have to put up with this kind of nonsense. <eleland/talkedits> 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Judea, an area in the West Bank"[edit]

The article currently states "Mount Hebron [...] in Judea, an area in Israel and the West Bank". Sources have been requested for the latter part of the claim (that Judea is an area in the West Bank) but none have been put forward. Earlier discussions, notably in TALK:Judea have yielded zero sources for this claim, so I'm inclined to believe such sources do not exist. However I'm prepared to give it a couple of days before we correct it. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three references (2 in the article, one in the talk page) have been provided, stating that the area of Mt Hebron is in Israel. Feel free to read them. NoCal100 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mt Hebron is not Judea, and since none of your sources makes that claim either, I assume we can safely correct the error. Assuming you have read the sources yourself, you are no doubt aware that none of them states anything else than that a small peripheral part of the Hebron massif is in Israel proper. In fact, the one you posted on this talk page appears to not support your claim at all. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MT Hebron is not Judea, but is a subset of Judea. If Mt Hebron is partly in Israel, simple logic shows that so is Judea. NoCal100 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That logic is indeed "simple", and not in an entirely positive way. I suggest you work a little more on that argument. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be unable to comprehend that if A is wholly contained within B, and A is partly in C, then B is partly in C. would you like me to draw you a Ven diagram? NoCal100 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: Look at the premises of your conclusion. ;) MeteorMaker (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They look fine to me. NoCal100 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review begging the question. You were supposed to prove your claim that Judea is an area in the West Bank, then you can't use that assumption as one of the premises. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I was supposed to prove, and it is not one of the premises. NoCal100 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I created this section: To give you a chance to prove that Judea is "an area in the West Bank" before that apparently unsupportable claim is removed. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here you go [2] NoCal100 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Judea and Samaria are the Biblical names for the areas comprising the West Bank." I don't think anybody disputes that fact, but weren't you supposed to prove that they are current names (outside Israel)? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Samaria refers to northern area and Judea refers to the southern area." Note the tense, and stop wikilawyering. NoCal100 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the "outside Israel" requirement. YNetNews is an Israeli news site and can be expected to use Israeli terminology. Even so, it does not say that the terms are used as anything else than biblical terms outside Israel, which is what you were asked to prove. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the goal posts, are we? Youdid not request usage 'outside Israel', and have now added the requirement. Oh well - have a read [3]. NoCal100 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read "Source: Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1997; Judea Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1995". No cigar. Re the "is the accepted English name outside the country in question" requirement, it's 1) default per WP:NCGN 2) presumably familiar to you after four months of participation in the discussion of this exact topic on talk:Israeli settlement and other places, and 3) clearly stated five posts above this. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FMEP found the data it was looking for in an Israeli source, and decided it was quite acceptable to use it outside Israel,for an English speaking audience. Were done here. NoCal100 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were going to provide some kind of proof that "Judea" is an accepted name for an area in the West Bank. All I've seen so far is one alleged example of use, which on closer inspection turned out to be a direct quote from an Israeli government source. Don't you have a reliable source that actually says it's called "Judea" outside Israel? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea that its 'a direct quote from an Israeli government source'? That's simply false. NoCal100 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. "Statistical Abstract of Israel" is issued by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, an official government body. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the data used to compile this table comes from two sources, Judea magazine and the Statistical Abstract of Israel, but the table itself, including the heading, is an original work created by FMEP. A quick check of Statistical Abstract of Israel would show that the CBS does not have any table so labeled, nor does it even break down population growth statistics so that 'Judea' is a separate entity. You cclaimed it is "a direct quote from an Israeli government source" without any evidence- I assume you just pulled that claim out of thin air. NoCal100 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics themselves are from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the header was supplied by Judea Magazine, a publication from the Israeli Zionist group Women in Green, which, according to the WP article, "aggressively supports Israeli settlement of those territories, which it proposes should be annexed". Not the most neutral source I can imagine to base your claim on that "Judea" is an accepted name outside Israel. Not that even they make that claim, that seems to be entirely your own WP:OR. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ready to concede that your claim that the FMEP article is "a direct quote from an Israeli government source." is false? That you have now moved the goal posts yet again, now requiring that a non-Israeli source be disqualified because it is Zionist? Even when that source is not being quoted, but rather, data it has collected is being used by a 3rd party, fully neutral source? And finaly, no, the header was not "supplied by Judea magazine. JM's header was "Population Growth in Judea, 1992-1994", FMEP's original header is "Population Growth in the Judea Region [Southern West Bank], 1992-1996". The FMEP article is an original work, using dtata collected by other sources, and it fully meets not only WP's requirements, but your own request, prior to your moving the goalpost. NoCal100 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Green, according to the WP article, is "a right-wing political women's group in Israel", so I assume you will have to go and edit that article now that you have concluded, through means that remain obscure to me, that they are "a non-Israeli source".
Re the table, it's the exact same one [4][5], only with the header changed from "Population Growth in Judea" to "Population Growth in the Judea Region [Southern West Bank]" (I guess Women in Green would never feel there is a need to explain that term). Two more year columns have also been added, and populated with data supplied by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. Um, what was that supposed to prove again?
Oh yes, that "Judea" is an accepted name (outside Israel) for an area in the West Bank. Very persistent goalpost, that. Again, do you have a source that actually makes that claim? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. The table is not the same one, nor even close, and couldn't possibly be the same one, as the JM table goes only as far as 1994, and was published in 1995, whereas the FMEP table lists data going as far as 1996. The JM table has two columns,labeled increase and %, which do not appear in the FMEP table. The JM table headings are "Local Council/Region;30 Jun 92;31 Dec 94", the FMEP headings for the same data sets are"Settlement/Regional Council;1992;1994". The FMEP table has 4 columns, labeled '1995],'1996','1992-1996 Increase' and '% Increase' which are not in th eJm table. Any editor who can say with a straight face that this table and [this table are "the exact same one" either has a very serious vision impairment, or is not editing in good faith. Please stop playing these games. NoCal100 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, apart from a table of settlements with the word "Judea" in the header, that on closer inspection turned out to be compiled by a Zionist organization in Israel, you have no evidence for your claim that the word "Judea" is widely used outside Israel? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table was compiled by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, an American , non-partisan organization. It clearly labels the region in question as part of the Southern West Bank. Your requirements, which have been extraordinary to begin with, have been fully met. It is time to stop wikilawyering and playing games, and move on. NoCal100 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ignored the question, forgive me for asking again: Apart from a quote from an extreme right-wing Zionist group in Israel (that incidentally does not state anything at all that can be interpreted as "Judea is a modern toponym outside Israel", which is what you were supposed to prove), do you have anything to back up that claim with? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore the question. I answered it, but in your constant attempts to obfuscate, mislead and wikilawyer, you may have missed it. The answer is that I have provided you with a source, which is an American non-partisan organization, which identifies the Judea region as a part of the West Bank, precisely what you asked for in the post which started this section ("Sources have been requested for the latter part of the claim (that Judea is an area in the West Bank"). Your requests have been fully met. It is time to stop wikilawyering and playing games, and move on. NoCal100 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did in fact ignore the question, which was: "Apart from [above non-example], do you have any evidence or your claim that the word "Judea" is widely used outside Israel"? In case you misconstrue that to mean I think your example was relevant, or as "moving the goalposts", we can spend a few more kilobytes discussing the value of a quote that 1) doesn't actually state anything remotely near "the word "Judea" is widely used by non-Israeli sources" and 2) is itself from an Israeli source — if you wish. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you, yet again, to what you originally wrote: "Sources have been requested for the latter part of the claim (that Judea is an area in the West Bank") - that request has been fully met. It is time to stop wikilawyering and playing games, and move on. NoCal100 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If and when you find a source that actually makes that claim, yes. Note that your claim is not just unsupported, it is also extraordinary (since the opposing position is abundantly well-sourced), which requires you to find extraordinarily good sources. That your best source is a source that doesn't even make the claim you're trying to find support for, and that, even as anecdotal evidence, it's pitifully weak, is a good indication that your search for such sources will probably be futile. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the sources already provided,any one of which is more that sufficient to meet the sourcing requirement, there are of course many, many, many more. Have fun trying to wikilawyer away these sources:

The first one is simply an Ariel Sharon quote (scroll up one page and you'll see), so let's not waste further time on it. The second one appears to be much better and actually support your claim, but we have to be cautious, because unfortunately, it's only availabe as text fragments on Google Books, which makes it impossible to for instance scroll up one page and see if it's an Ariel Sharon quote, or if a narrowing qualification has become truncated. While printed in 1984 (almost a decade before the breakpoint recommended in WP:NCGN), there's still a good chance it may be the consolation goal you've been looking for. However, I remind you that WP:NCGN requires us to use the widely accepted term for an area, and that there isn't a shortage of sources that explicitly say "Judea" is not. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you scrolled up on page, you saw that it clearly says 'Brackted material added by the editors" - thus the part in brackets, the one that explains that Judea and Samaria encompass the West bank is not part of the Sharon quote, but rather a statement by Gettleman & Schaar. Give it up already. NoCal100 (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the standard way to explain the terms to non-Israeli readers when they occur in quotes by Sharon and others. It doesn't mean the editors or the publisher endorse the terms, and the fact that they are explained at all shoots a hole in the position that they are widespread and common. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of well sourced material[edit]

There are 3 links that explicitly say part of the area is in Israel. Unexplained removal of sourced material is vandalism - please do not do it again. NoCal100 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here are the excerpts from the sources you claim prove your point:

"In 1964 Yosef Weiss, then director of the Jewish National Fund arrived in the barren lands of southern Mount Hebron and stated: "Here shall stand a forest!" Thus, under the motto of: "making the desert bloom," tens of thousands of trees were planted and against all odds flourished. Today Yatir forest is the largest of Israel's forests. We'll explore Jewish and Bedouin settlements inside this forest"

"The Yatir Forest is the largest in Israel and spreads over 30,000 dunams on the slopes of Mount Hebron, approximately 51 miles northeast of Be'er Sheba."

Where in either of these passages does it say that Mount Hebron is in Judea. It says it's either on the slopes or at the southern end. That doesn't make it in Judea. annoynmous 04:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 sources, all of which you removed.
  • The first source says "located in the western foothills of Mount Hebron in Israel"
  • The 2nd source says "The Yatir Forest is the largest in Israel and spreads over 30,000 dunams on the slopes of Mount Hebron"

And the thrisd source, which you refer to, says the director of the Jewish National Fund arrived in the barren lands of southern Mount Hebron, in 1964 and that today, that area "is the largest of Israel's forests". Another clue would have been the date 1964 - when an Israeli official could not have been present there if it was under Jordanian control. Please stop removing well sourced material. NoCal100 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The western foothills of Mount Hebron is not equal to Mount Hebron, and that is not a RS. And again, the forest is not equivalent to the mountain. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The foothills of a mountainous area are part of that geographical location, and the forest is located in that area, as the sources explicitly say. American Archaeology in the Mideast is a reliable source, of the best that exist on Wikipeda. Same goes for an article in Ha'aretz, which is the same source used for the claim that part of Mt Hebron is in the West Bank. NoCal100 (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying this is a RS? Or the Israeli MFA? I didn't object to the first source, I object to your reading of it. "Kibbutz Lahav, located in the western foothills of Mount Hebron in Israel". The "in Israel" part refers to Kibbuts Lahav and the 'western foothills of Mount Hebron', not Mount Hebron as you dishonestly partitioned above. Nableezy (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I made, the passage says the forest is on the slopes of Hebron, it doesn't say anywhere that Hebron is inside Israel.
Yes Weiss is referring to southern Mount Hebron, which is mostly in the West bank. At most the very end tip of Hebron is in Israel.
The first source you refer too says the Western foothills in Israel, which is next to the West bank. Many other editors have pointed out that theres more to that sentence than what you sourced. You have not provided one source that clearily states that Hebron is located in Israel. annoynmous 04:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The foothills of something are part of that something, just as the slopes of that something are part of it, and just like its peak is part of it. I have never argued against the position that most of Mt. Hebron is in the West bank, I just want to make it clear that part of it is in Israel. I have never claimed that Hebron is located in Israel, so naturally did not provide sources for that. You do not understand the difference between Hebron and Mt Hebron, so perhaps its best you stay out of this debate, of which you know nothing, and to which you wikistalked me. NoCal100 (talk)
You may have never argued against that on talk, but you've removed it from the article, repeatedly editing it to describe Mt Hebron as part of Israel. If you are correct, the extreme southern portion of the Hebron massif extends across the Green Line into Israel, but your edits to the article portray the entire massif as part of Israel. <eleland/talkedits> 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So wait a minute, you admit that most of Mount Hebron is in the West bank and yet this is how your edit of the article looked:

Mount Hebron (Arabic: جبل الخليل) (Hebrew: הר חברון) is a geographic region and geologic formation in Judea, an area in Israel[1][2][3] and the West Bank[4][5]

This implies that it's mostly in Israel and part of it goes over into the West bank when in fact it's the exact opposite. Just because some southern foothills stretch over into Israel doesn't mean it is in Israel. annoynmous 05:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only RS you have says the western foothills of Mount Hebron is in Israel. If you want to say "Mount Hebron is in the West Bank with its western foothills extending into Israel" your source would support that. Not what you are writing. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a compromise edit in line with what Nableezy suggested above. annoynmous 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I have never argued against the position that most of Mt. Hebron is in the West bank". No, of course you haven't, typos and all. You know if your concern was to include a mention that a very small part of the extremities of the area is found the other side of the Green Line, you could just have added that information, rather than repeatedly reverting out all mention of the West Bank or placing the "in Israel" part ahead of the West Bank as if to suggest that more than 50% was that side. That's called collaborative as opposed to disruptive editing. Anyhow, we seem to have some form of accuracy now, although I would dispute the addition of "Judea" (which was not in the original suggested compromise). As we know, the use of the term is a matter of some debate as to what it refers to (it's certainly never used to refer to an area wholly "in Israel"), and whether it is really used at all these days as a NPOV term; and in this case the source as quoted doesn't seem to use it, and even if it did, it is only one book, seemingly about archaeology and ancient history. --Nickhh (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude[edit]

What is the altitude of the mountain? --Pmt (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a definition yet. What are the geographical boundaries?[edit]

That means: N, W, S, E. Not selectively. Most of the talk anywhere is about the "Southern Hebron Hills". Does that mean that that's all there is, or are there any Northern, Western, Eastern H.H.?

Are all the settlements within the Har Hevron Regional Council geographically in the Mt Hebron area? See for instance Amora (slightly NW of Hebron).

Writing articles w/o a definition is not acceptable. It leads to a whole raft of mistakes, interminable discussions, etc. The user is misled and the article is useless or worse than that. It's true that usually geogr. terms relating to regions of Eretz Israel/Palestine/Holy Land tend to be vague, but then we must choose one definition and write it in the intro (lead): this art. is about XYZ, others define it differently. Under the History heading we can add how the definition has varied in time. But right now, we have worse than nothing. Arminden (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, time to do something about it.Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a personal perspective, "Har Hevron" is a vague term that generally refers to the mountains around Hebron, while the mountains around Jerusalem are referred to as "Harei Yerushalayim" ("Jerusalem Highlands") and the areas in the north are referred to as "Samaria" or "Shomron", so all of these are just names of the hill regions surrounding ancient and modern cities. I don't think there's a need to find a definition but simply follow what sources say on the matter. Here's a quote from a Hebrew geography book:
הוא רכס במתי בעל שיפועים תלולים ביותר למערב . במזרחו נמצאים מתלולים לכיוון רמת המדבר , וגבול מעבר אקלימי הדרגתי , אך מהיר , למדבר יהודה במזרח . תחילתו בפסגת הר גלה בצפון , והוא נשען על קמר חברון ויורד במתינות יחסית דרומה עד בקעת באר - שבע - ערד . המעבר מערבה מבמת ההר אל השפלה הוא קצר וחד , ולא בשלוחות תלולות וארוכות , כבהרי ירושלים והר בית אל . צדו המערבי יוצר רושם של מתלול אחיד ומוצק כחומה . תלילותו הרבה של הר חברון יוצרת בו , בחלקים מסוימים , מבנה מצלעות . ההר נפרד מן השפלה בסדרות של עמקי תלם בבסיסו . הר חברון נחלק לשלוש יחידות - משנה : צפון הר חברון , דרום הר חברון וה"ערקוב".
[Mount Hebron] is a plateau ridge [(have no idea how to translate that)], with steep slopes to its west. In its east slopes toward the desert plateau, and a gradual but quick climate barrier to the Judean Desert in the east. It begins in the peak of Mount Gilo in the north and lies on the Hebron Anticline and slopes steadily south down to the Beersheva-Arad Valley. The transition west from the plateau to the lowlands is short and sharp, and not in long and steep spurs like in the Jerusalem Mountains and Mount Beit El. Its western side creates the impression of a single slope, solid as a wall. The high steepness of Mount Hebron creates in some sections a polygonic structure. The mount is separated from the lowlands in a series of valleys in its base. Mount Hebron is separated into three subregions: North Mount Hebron, Southern Mount Hebron and the "Arkoub"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sheet XXI

@Arminden, Selfstudier, and Bolter21: from the PEF Survey of Palestine's description of Sheet XXI p.295-297:

The Hebron hills are thus seen to be bounded on the north by Wady Urtas, on the east by the great gorge of Wady 'Arrub, running south, on the west by Wady es Sunt, running north, and on the south they split in two, the western ridge curving round westwards, the eastern falling suddenly; and thus two other districts are formed with an average elevation 500 feet less than that of the Hebron hills, divided from one another by the great valley rising near Hulhu1, and a marked step is formed immediately south of Hebron, descending towards the Desert of Beersheba.

I suggest we mark this out on the PEF map, and add it as an image to the article. And change the article name to simply "Hebron Hills". Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We have the text from Bolter and the SWP description. I looked up "Arkoub" and what came up is the Ottoman el-'Arkub (also w/o diacritic) district "southwest of Jerusalem" from several articles on pre-48 Arab Palestinian villages, which together give us a good idea about where it was -IF we cannot find a map for it. See Bayt 'Itab (main village), Aqqur, Dayr al-Hawa, Dayr al-Shaykh, Husan, Jarash, Jerusalem, Kasla, Jerusalem, Al-Qabu, Ras Abu 'Ammar, Sufla; from the Khirbet et-Tibbaneh article: see Jab'a "in the higher hills of 'Arkûb". So some of the borders are Wadi Artas, Wadi Arrub -see for instance Solomon's Pools-, Wadi es-Sunt = Valley of Elah, the biggest valley near Halhul, and the Beersheba-Arad valley. Also the heights around Beit Jala/Gilo as northern limit. I still don't know where the boundary between Northern and Southern Mount Hebron is supposed to be, with "the Arkoub" being a unit distinct of Northern Mt Hebron, southwest of Jerusalem. Arminden (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So where is South Hebron hills? What I was looking for and ended up here? Is it (all) in the West Bank? Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I won't have the know-how (processing maps) & patience to finalise this matter, but from what I know, basically yes. Anyway, since the boundaries towards the Shephelah and Beersheba-Arad Valley are not as sharp as international borders, and the Green Line is just an armistice line (so where the armies happened to be when they've had enough of fighting), this or that village will be on the "wrong" side of the line, from whichever pov you'll look at it. Arminden (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There were a lot of comments here so I'm not sure what everyone is getting at. Feel free to request again and start a new discussion if you feel it needs to be moved. (non-admin closure) Invinciblewalnut (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hebron → Hebron hills – As discussed in the above section. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it seems to refer to a specific hill rather than a generic term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ngrams [6] show that 'Mount Hebron' is historically the WP:Commonname but 'Hebron hills' is gaining popularity—blindlynx (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you subtract the uses of "South Hebron Hills", it's a virtual tie: [7]. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ngram with South Hebron hills included, like the usage at Avigayil. Personally I would have preferred this (it's also a redirect) but I have been unable to locate a geographical definition for it while, per the section above, there is one for Hebron hills and I am making an assumption that South Hebron hills means the southern Hebron hills. The reason that SHh is shooting up is because that's where all the action is, if I can phrase it like that. Anyone object to my pinging the editors who commented in the above discussion? Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one looks at this article and deletes all the empty history sections that no-one seems interested in editing, it's essentially a stub with one section about flora and fauna. There is not even a geographical definition for the area. I am however interested in editing re the current (and notable) situation in (a part of?) the area so for now, I think I might create a section in it, South Hebron hills and write there what interests me.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what article do you propose to be moved to that title? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Hebron.Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for explaining that, now I understand. So the syntax you used above is wrong, you're proposing that "Mount Hebron" be moved to "Hebron hills", overwriting the redirect currently at "Hebron hills". Is that correct? If so, you should have given "Mount Hebron" as 1, and "Hebron hills" as 2. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies, never had to do this before. Shall I do it again? Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it for you. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks!Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, it's all very confusing at first. You don't need to do it again, you can just change the "1" and "2" that you gave above. Anyway, I think we should wait for more people to see this before we actually move it, as I've got the feeling it may get contested. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might but it has been discussed on the talk page, I only just got around to trying to do it. How I ended up here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and contest this. I don't see anything on Talk:Mount Hebron about moving the page, and given how contentious Palestine-Israel articles are, this should be discussed before being moved. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last section on the talk page is a discussion between 4 editors (2 from either side) agreeing to this move but OK, I will do a formal RM.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Southern Hebron Hills: The southern hill country of Palestine, known as the Judean Hills, is divided into three ranges running north to south: the Bethel Hills, the Jerusalem Hills, and the Hebron Hills. The Hebron Hills rise higher than the Jerusalem Hills to the north and drop steeply to the east and west."
We have an article Judaean Mountains (with aka Judaean hills). It seems mountains/hills are being transl(iter)ated as if they are the same thing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article is so scant that I can't understand what the geography actually is. Among the citations is one article from Haaretz referring to "[structures] on the southern slope of Mount Hebron" and another from the same source referring to a cave "in the West Bank's south Hebron Hills". The natural English reading is that there is an area called the Hebron Hills of which one (presumably prominent) instance is Mount Hebron. The Europa World Year Book refers to "the Mount Hebron massif"; cf. Snowdon Massif. If the two names refer to different things, the Ngrams don't tell us much, and we just need to decide which this article should be about. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds. The singular here refers to a plurality of rises, ridges, mountains, and the proposed moves wants to clarify that. But, from personal mountaineering experience in Tasmania, Cradle Mountain, though referring to one specific peak, also refers to the general mountainous area extending for 90kms (or was that miles) for trekkers. My reading of the literature on this I/P area nonetheless suggest that Hebron Hills would be a more accurate reflection of the geophysical reality. If the empty boxes were to be filled, the archaeological and epigraphic literature, if I recall correctly, almost always uses a pluralizing designation (Hebron Hills, South Hebron Hills) Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. This book uses Mount Hebron, but Google Scholar suggests Hebron Hills is more common, e.g. this and this. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Google Scholar, +"hebron hills" -"south hebron hills" -"mount hebron" returns about 1000 results, +"mount hebron" -"mt hebron" -"hebron hills" returns about 750 results, and there are about 500 results for whole bunch of results for +"mt hebron" -"mount hebron" -"hebron hills", but about half of the latter are for various churches and schools in the US. I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk either way. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we subtract "south hebron hills"? Also, of the first page of results for your second search, 3 results refer to a church (or churches) and 2 refer to a "Mount Hebron Restoration Project", which could also be a church (or other building). Havelock Jones (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because South Hebron Hills is a distinct topic. It refers to several hills south of the town of Hebron, which are the sites of contentious settlements. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Hebron is in the Hebron Hills, so it would make sense that the sourth Hebron Hills would be hills south of Hebron, without being a separate area. To the extent that there is critical scholarship on the modern conflict, I do not see that it should be excluded from the article. Presumably an article on Christian Settlement in the South Hebron Hills in the Byzantine Period would plausibly be an RS for this article? Havelock Jones (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a source but Judea has, uncited and unlinked, "Geographers divide Judea into several regions: the Hebron hills, the Jerusalem saddle, the Bethel hills and the Judean desert east of Jerusalem, which descends in a series of steps to the Dead Sea."Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re my assumption above that South Hebron hills (South is frequently capitalized) does in fact mean the southern Hebron Hills assuming we can treat Haaretz as a RS, "Yatta in the southern Hebron Hills" as well the headline Settler Attack on Palestinians in Hebron Hills Serves Israeli Policy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The PEF survey discussed in the prior section says in its intro "The present Sheet contains 372.7 square miles of the country round Hebron, including the high watershed hills, the low hills to the west, and the plateau to the east above the Dead Sea. It is naturally divided into four districts: 1st. The Hebron hills; 2nd. The Shephelah ; 3rd. The Negeb plateau ; and 4th. The Jeshimon, or Desert. We should be following this source, additionally confirmed by the Israeli Orni/Efrat Geography of Israel source (map showing same 4 districts, including "Hebron hills" at p.35).Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have close to nothing and you're wasting energy on semantics?[edit]

Is this article here only as an opportunity to cover "where the action is"? Did someone mistake Wiki for the news page in their local paper? I'm not going to write it. Who is? Arminden (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that I could have done so at any time since the discussion initiated by yourself last year (you seem to have changed your mind, you agreed to move it to Hebron hills then, why not now?). I am going to do it shortly though. Not the history, biblical or otherwise, I have zero interest in that and neither does anyone else apparently judging by the edit history.Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I oppose a title change, both are well-established names, so I don't care, which is not: I oppose. The real problem is, we don't have an article and there are endless discussions about how to name it, when both choices are equally good. Arminden (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The endless discussions, if you can call them that, date back to 2009 (look back up the page) where a lot of noise was generated by a rather well known character followed by an 8 year gap to 2017 when someone asks how high is it and then last year the discussion you started. So nobody cares, apparently.(btw, pretty sure there is guidance about having empty sections in an article). Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, do you?
  • What is the definition?
  • What is the geographical extent (boundaries)?
  • What is there (settlements, people, landforms, landmarks, ...)?
  • What is the history?
This is what matters. If "hills" or "mount" is semantic BS, and look above how much talk there is on that. But your only interest is in having a canvas for the day's news about the settlers and the IDF chasing out Palestinians. And that's far to narrow for an encyclopedia. If you start an encyclopedic article, you need to work on it until it looks like one. "Nobody cares" my foot. If it were there and good, it would have lots of hits. Even in journalism, or specifically there, to understand the news you need a thoroughly researched background, all else is superficial "citizens' journalism", social media, or yellow press. Or even worse: propaganda. The national-religious settlers would block your arguments in no time with historical facts, legal precedents, religion, genetics, common sense, etc., etc., and you'll have no answer to that other than slogans and "genuine outrage". Been there, done that. But I guess I can write this as many times and as clear as it can ever be done, you still won't get the point and reply smth irrelevant, because you're a man with a mission. Enjoy, I'm clearing the field. Arminden (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the same questions and I am going to answer some of them, not sit on the sidelines pontificating.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The national-religious settlers would block your arguments in no time with historical facts, legal precedents, religion, genetics, common sense, etc., etc., and you'll have no answer to that other than slogans and "genuine outrage". Been there, done that.

I think you've dropped the level of your customary acute judgment there, A. The area in question, yes we will have to defi ne in in the varieties of its shifting historic borders, no simple matter, has, apart of course Jews, a notable Egyptian, Persian, idumaean, and Arab presence (the latter attested by the 5th century BCE). That is what the extensive ostraca and other evidence reveals. Bible-bashers would get relatively short shrift in the reconstruction of its fluid cross-cultures. One cannot write esp.- ancient history ethnically, though of course editors here tend to do so.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess part of the question here is whether we need a separate article on this sub-region or whether this article wouldn't be better merged into Judean Mountains. I suppose that depends on whether this sub-region is generally treated separately in the RSs. For Iron I-II, I don't think that's the case, but I've no idea about other periods. Havelock Jones (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple recent articles I worked on we decided to split in two, one devoted to (biblical)/history/archaeology material, the domain of experts usually and one for the modern status, disputed for the obvious reasons.Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, hi. Maybe I've not made myself clear: I was a) reacting to Selfstudier, who hasn't contributed anything to the article's history section and called it irrelevant ("So nobody cares, apparently"), and b) I've done (part of) my homework for many years now and yes, I would have more than a good answer, I just doubt Selfstudier would, judging by his approach here. So you misread the thrust of my statement, and I must apologise if I wasn't clear enough that it was an answer to, and addressed directly to, Selfstudier. That you would have plenty of answers, that I don't doubt, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is less than a stub. So again: it's not about me adopting the national-religious settlers' position, may Zeus forbid, it's that using Wikipedia as an extension of the daily newspaper is profoundly wrong - and counterproductive, as well. I'm a bit surprised that you could assess my position so inaccurately. Thing is, there are enough educated and very focused people among the settlers, who can argue intelligently, not just stone- and Molotov cocktail-throwing "youths of the hills", i.e. brainwashed imbeciles and sociopaths. So "nobody cares" when it comes to history and everything else on my list, is not something I can accept quietly. All the rest of what you wrote goes without saying - for me. We don't need to always reach the same conclusion, but we're never that far apart, esp. on facts. Out for a swim, cheeres, Arminden (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May Zeus forbid? That means me. My eldest nephew as a child, fatherless, altered 'zio' to 'Zeus', calling me thus. I've been reading about the particular groups in the settlements in the Hebron hills for nearly 2 decades. Not only in my book, those at Maon, to cite one notorious case, indulge in sociopathic behavior according to sources (let's forget the German convert there: relatively harmless. Read David Dean Shulman's Dark Hope (2007) for acts of cruelty he called instances of 'absolute evil' (a phrase whose resonance every Jewish reader will, somewhat uneasily, recall), like sowing poisoned pellets over the hills where Palestinian herders graze their skeletal flocks, to kill them off, and collaterally the mountain gazelles there died off, along with several other indigenous species of fauna. That pastoral culture is itself a fascinating microworld anthropologists would love to study in detail. Indeed many Israelis state (an impression I had decades ago, that it appears to conserve something like an authentic fossil ecoculture not dissimilar to that which must have lain behind the Canaanite/Israelite pastoral societies dimly glimpsed in the Bible, and therefore of primary heuristic importance. Not something to be railroaded, shunted and throttled off from the landscape as incompatible with Israeli concepts of efficient ethnocratic landscape redesign for people who like to live as comfortably with every modcom out there as cousins in Switzerland South Africa (Susya) or the US enjoy. The religious informed settler draws motivation from the Bible, which has similar stories. Of course the religious settler will rewrite the landscape, and erase its historical heritage and inhabitants, in terms of their reading of the Bible, and find warrant there for merciless destruction in the name of an ideal. Their history concerns 900-500 BC., as canonized in that mythistorical masterpiece, and coincidentally, the trace of that archaeologically interests you as well, who have however a secular outlook and far broader interests. So to place them and their narrative priorities of 'redeeming' what was there 2-3000 years ago, above the history of dispossession over the last century - a mere blip in the longue durée, is a matter of choice. But contemporary scholarship doesn't need to follow that bifurcation of what is interesting (our history) and what is of negligible concern (74 years of struggling to maintain a foothold on land that has 2,000 years of a Christian and Arab tradition).It fascinates Israeli and diaspora scholarship - newspapers, well one can wipe one's arse on them, but what the best report of history will end up, decades down the road, in that tradition of care for reality's complexities, the beauty and brilliant achievements of Israel's reengineering of that part of the world, and the savagery of the cost suffered by those who are there, but programmatically excluded from the brave new world of their neighbours as the roadmap of the Book of Joshua is followed. Most Australians have no awareness or interest in aborigines, neither do Americans or Canadians, so even in this, the kind of sensibility that decent Israelis have, insouciance as they get on with their lives in, basically, their world is more than understandable. But people like myself or Selfstudier are fascinated by the last one hundred years - it is an extraordinary field of study also for the outsider who, like myself, cannot fit that mentality into Jewish tradition without a sense of abiding ineludible tension. It has an historical thickness no records of the past of that land have conveyed and is 'fair game' for articles. So, really, I think neither you nor Selfstudier should get het up over these differences. I didn't go and remove those sections for a simple reason. At Barasana I made a similar set of headings for future work, that long remained, and stay, empty. One passing reader wiped them out, with good reason. I restored them saying I fully intended to fill in the section details. I have the two key anthropological volumes on their small world at hand, but in my first reading forgot to annotate (which would allow me to quickly fill out the glaring holes), and need to find the leisure to reread closely those 600 pages to fulfill my promise. They are still on that Barasana page, but, if someone came along and removed them, I wouldn't blame them. It would be a reasoning elision, given my sloth or, as I age, lack of time under pressure of so many other things I pursue in my reading. Cheers, mate.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I see now that another editor, over a year ago, wiped out those empty sections (I missed that). I won't restore them.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being a bit-longwinded and personal above, an attempt to fiddle with the temperature controls on the page, as atmospheric bumps alienated two excellent editors. I'll try to do a bit more for articles on the area by way of compensation. Concrete data, not divagations.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting by Arminden moved to Nishidani's talk-page. In a nutshell: without in-depth knowledge of physical and human geography, in history and current times, the article is useless even to the very limited focus contributors tend to have (I/P conflict). It's informing no one w/o giving the background, it becomes counterproductive for its own set purpose, and it belies and contradicts the range of the chosen, very general title. INITIALLY: Arminden (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC) NOW: Arminden (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoy our exchanges, but am a bit worried we might be seen as foruming. If you like you could lift and plunk the last exchange on the general issue on my page, where I could reply to it with an easier conscience. Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Foruming" - Wiki Newspeak one learns to use :)) Sure, happily.
I just looked over Susiya. Another clear case of non-encyclopedic approach. There are facts (literary sources and archaeology for the past, modern era and contemporary sources of every kind for the recent and current developments), and there are other types of motivation. The Arabs came in the 7th c. from Arabia, the Jews in the 20th from elsewhere, but the former get to stay on the main page, while the latter are banned to another one, about a settlement qualified consistently, from the hatnote onwards, as "illegal". An encyclopedia must by definition take the longue durée approach, and leave qualifications out of titles and cross-references such as hatnotes, and put them inside the articles. History is written in time. Of course Jewish Susya is illegal under int'l law, but not under Israeli law; Israeli law shouldn't apply there, but that's a DISCUSSION, not a title or fact for a hatnote. But more than anything, the Crusader casale, the 20th c. Arab village, the Bedouin settlement, and the modern Jewish settlement, are all as much part of the HISTORY of the place as are the ancient Jewish and later Arab (7th-12th c.) towns/villages. The only ENCYCLOPEDIC approach is to present them all in a concise manner here, and for large subjects place a redirect to a dedicated, expanded article ("main"). The principle of PROPORTIONALITY is essential in any editorial work. Again, I'm NOT disagreeing with the importance of the I/P conflict, with the disgusting events taking place there being of wide interest, I'm strictly talking about editorial work on an allegedly encyclopedic article written for users of every kind and focus. That's my beef. (And I'll move this to Susya, too, but it also belongs here, as it's all the same). Arminden (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article was hard to edit (Susya) because we had several socks disrupting it - only my work on the synagogue was silently approved - one editor I presume representing directly Regavim barged in and made a mess, and I think the splitting off of the Jewish town was due to his idea, certainly not mine. I would have had everything on the same Susya page but the editor thought we should form a kind of splitting ethnic apartheid.
As to the rest, what you get is the result of intensive POV-warriror conditions (you can include me in on that, no wuz). The attack position was to add more doubt about the right of Palestinians to the land, or to add cases where settlers were murdered, and one countered that with the history of settler's dispossessing tactics. Those are the conditions that produced the article. The irony is that I wrote the Jewish section on the synagogue though identified in those says as anti-Semitic.
On your general proposal, well, that looks nice abstractly. Jews and before them Israelites, have an intensely documented history going back 2,900 years, the core of which surrounds the stories of the Tanakh. And of course Israeli archaeology has worked intensely, justly so, to bring into the light the hidden record of the deep past. Palestinians (though for example there are extensive Arabic histories apparently on Hebron for the last few centuries) have nothing, like the 20+ ethnic groups mentioned in the Tanakh who disappeared. Your proposal, objectively, would simply privilege the former, which is fundamentally about what happened in the SHHills from Bible Times and some centuries in the CE, excluding the fact that the area has undergone continuous Arabic influence from the mid 5th century BC right through to the 7th century CE., and by the 10th century had been Arabized - stuff meagerly reported, but there in obscure monographs, epigraphic archaeological, and most recently, in historical and ethnographic works from the last century.
Susya as we have it was (a) a synagogal Jewish site for three centuries perhaps in the early CE period. (b) an Arab-dominant area for 13 centuries. (b) modern period, where we have really dense information which consists of (d) an attested Palestinian presence, with title over 300 hectares, for 150 years where (e) in the last 40 intense efforts to steal the land, against Israeli law, have lead to the dispossession of its traditional families. Most of the literature deals with (d) and (e) and the turmoils of that wrestling for either possession or dispossession, and the article naturally reflects that. It would, in my view, be POV to dispossess the article of the conflict, and stick to archaeology - as an embodiment of the factual (ergo 'encyclopedic' in your sense). I know that the latter is your centre of focus, but encyclopedias do deal extensively with a conflict and in detail (see any wiki article on Ireland in the early 20th century. The major technical problem is that best encyclopedic practice would commend the use of a detail reliable academic source whioh covers the conflict since 1967 re Susya. So far, it would appear, no academic has done this and therefore, fauxz de mieux we have to present the details, which of course, should be rewritten with greater technical cogency. That is no easy task. To 'fix' it by, as in the past, splitting solves nothing, except allowing eyes to read about the synagogue. Too convenient for a settler POV, one indeed based on a shocking record of contempt for an ancient existing microculture, and property rights. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you write it out like this, I have something to learn from it, or it makes me curious to go and read up about what sounds new or different from what I knew. From the article itself or the comments made here about what matters or not—no, I don't, it only makes me fume because it's so shallow. And there are many articles like this. There is a level on which discussions are bringing people forward, it doesn't even matter if they're contradictory or consensual. If that level is missing, it's one big frustration for those familiar with the topic, and a huge amount of disinformation for the majority of the users.
In principle, I do argue myself in favour of having single articles on every geographical site. But if a certain subset of the topic becomes disproportionately large, it has to be marked by a cross-reference ("main" or "see also") and dealt with in a separate article. You cannot force the user to pick up a magnifying glass or pitchfork to find what they're looking for among a pile of material. The I/P conflict is always there and that's fine with me, but when I'm looking up the Colosseum I don't want half the article to deal with human rights, Christian martyrs, inhumane treatment of animals, slavery, and imperial exploitation of occupied lands. All of those must be mentioned and linked, and dealt with in large detail - elsewhere. Forcing one's private focus on certain sub-topics on others is wrong - it's not done, impolite (as in: I know better than you what matters here), and also against common good editorial practice. Even newspapers – remember those? – have separate sets of pages. I usually throw the sports pages to the recycling bin right after the advertisement leaflets. Here too, I want to be allowed to choose. I will always eventually also click the I/P link, sometimes go there first, but please, don't force it on me, or you'll lose me as a user immediately. Arminden (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hebron → Hebron hills – Move request per above no consensus move discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebron hills are thus seen to be bounded on the north by Wady Urtas, on the east by the great gorge of Wady 'Arrub, running south, on the west by Wady es Sunt, running north, and on the south they split in two, the western ridge curving round westwards, the eastern falling suddenly; and thus two other districts are formed with an average elevation 500 feet less than that of the Hebron hills, divided from one another by the great valley rising near Hulhu1, and a marked step is formed immediately south of Hebron, descending towards the Desert of Beersheba.[1]

Map showing same 4 districts, including "Hebron hills"[2]

"The Southern Hebron Hills: The southern hill country of Palestine, known as the Judean Hills, is divided into three ranges running north to south: the Bethel Hills, the Jerusalem Hills, and the Hebron Hills. The Hebron Hills rise higher than the Jerusalem Hills to the north and drop steeply to the east and west." [3]

It is clear that the best sources prefer the proposed title. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The PEF Survey of Palestine's description of Sheet XXI p.295-297
  2. ^ Orni/Efrat Geography of Israel, Israel Universities Press, 1973, p.54
  3. ^ https://brill.com/view/book/9789004298408/B9789004298408_005.xml
Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Mountains has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if there are two separate subjects here: Mount Hebron and the Hebron Hills of which it is a part? Either way, Mount Hebron is markedly more common in English sources than Hebron hills according to Ngram Viewer, but in the last couple of years Hebron Hills is more common than either. See here. So even if they are the same, the spelling should be Hebron Hills. Bermicourt (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS as I suspected, it seems that they are not one and the same thing. I have come across several sources that talk about Mount Hebron as part of the Hebron Hills. Bermicourt (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do those sources have a definition for Mount Hebron? Can we see them? In all previous discussions it has been assumed that these are one and the same, thus the redirects. Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the NGRAM, try typing "Mount Hebron" into Google and see what comes up for you, I get a raft of locations in the USA, school, cemetery, real estate agent, theatre, church etc. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book notes "These are my summaries of the Hebrew publications. I have translated the Hebrew term [Har Hevron] or "Hebron mountains" literally instead of "Hebron hills" as it is sometimes rendered"; he also cites sources referring to the Hebron Hills. Again suggests that we are talking about the same thing here. It would be useful if a map with "Mount Hebron" labelled on it could be found, I can't find one, whereas I can find several with Hebron hills marked.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Hebron Hills". Although both are used in English, Hebron Hills is more common. It also makes more sense in English usage as "Mountain" usually indicates a singular feature rather than extended region. Zerotalk 13:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: If both terms exist, Hebron Hills is by far the better option in that it accurately reflects that it is a range of hills that is being referred to. Mount Hebron confusingly conjures up the notion of a specific mountain when apparently that is not at all what it is that is being referred to. It is a form of considerable semantic drift to allow Mount to mean anything other than a specific mountain, hill or peak. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"In Israel"[edit]

The quote from the given source is slightly misleading, it actually says "...made plans to survey and excavate in the vicinity of Kibbutz Lahav, located in the western foothills of Mount Hebron in Israel".

The excavation referred to was at Tell Halif and this 2015 source says the site (which is to the East of and adjoining Lahav and virtually sits on the Green Line so it is just in Israel) "is strategically located at the juncture of three different ecological zones: the Hebron Hills to the northeast, the foothills of the Shephelah to the west and the Northern Negev Desert to the south." and this source says that it is located "In the northeastern Negev on the border between the hill country and the Shephelah" which suggests that Lahav is not actually in the Hebron Hills.(My guess would be that the biblical archaeologist of the existing source, when referring to Mount Hebron, has included the Judean foothills as part of Mount Hebron and those are the "foothills" he refers to) If one refers to the Geography of Israel by Efraim Orni, Elisha Efrat, map on p.54 the Green Line and the Shefelah (Judean foothills) as well as the Hebron Hills and the Negev are clearly marked. Unless anyone wants to dispute this, I am going to remove the reference to the Hebron Hills being in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was never a strong source as it wasnt about Mt Hebron at all, and I would have no issue with it being removed. It was added by a multiple times banned user who was attempting to place this in "Judea" an "area in Israel" for obvious reasons. The current formulation was made in attempt at appeasement. nableezy - 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's WP:SYNTH, but if you look at the topography on Google maps, it is actually fairly obvious that the margins of the Hebron hills are what actually defines the Israel-West Bank border, with the roads on the Israeli side passing through the flat, open valley beyond the foothills. Tell Halif is then clearly on the far side of the same valley from the foothills. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the southern and eastern slopes of the Hebron Hills are indeed in Israel. Take Yatir Forest for example. It is located south of the Israel-West Bank border. There are several sources that describe it as part of the Hebron Hills, for example: [[8]] "The forest is located at the edge of the desert, on the lower slopes of the Hebron hills northeast of Beer Sheba"; [from nothing’—constructing Israeli rurality] "Yatir Forest planted by the JnF on the southern slopes of the Hebron Hills" Tombah (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the west having failed (idk why you reintroduced that NoCal material, it was taken out long ago), you are now going to try the south and the east (? desert), is that it? The first one is not really an rs (it also contradicts itself it says first "Geographic location-Northern and western Negev") and the second one is a 404 but never mind, I will look into Yatir. I have noticed while researching this that people are a bit sloppy with terminology when it comes to the Judean mountain range (and "Mount Hebron"), it is not always clear precisely to what they are referring. Example, I want to check it some more but it says "The highest peak of the mountain ridge is in the Palestinian city of Halhul" but I think that is rather in the Jerusalem hills not the Hebron Hills. Whatever the outcome it is nevertheless clear that the vast majority of the Hebron Hills are in the West Bank.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at some point there comes the question of due weight. If 90% is in the West Bank, how significant is a nub of foothill extruding elsewhere? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the Yatir Forest page and the sources cited for the material naming the forest's location as the Hebron Hills failed verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nbn.org.il/aliyah-inspiration/nbn-blogger-network/go-beyond-south-blog/negev-forests/ is an Israeli source saying "The Yatir forest, located south of the Hebron Hills on the edge of the Northern Negev" I suspect the reality is that the hill country just merges into the forest/desert at the Green Line.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of travel sites obviously just copied "located on the southern slopes of Mount Hebron/Hebron Hills" from the Yatir Forest page. More authoritative sources say it is at the desert fringe https://books.openedition.org/irdeditions/2128?lang=en Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebron_Hills&oldid=1206024731"