Talk:Hebron

Merge proposal for Beit HaShalom

• Merge Beit HaShalom is a part of the history of Hebron. In part, recentism led to it having its own article, though in a larger historical context, it is a small part and portion of the history and heritage of Hebron. As such, Beit HaShalom should be merged into the Hebron article in context. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The history of Hebron runs into thousands of years, and Beit Shalom is a small blip on the screen. Were it incorporated, the relatively large page on Beit Shalom would have to be whittled down to a line or two, and thus eviscerate the article, while adding nothing of interest to Hebron. Nothing gained for Hebron, and much lost for the Beit Shalom article.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Nishidani here; Beit HaShalom is a minor event in the very long history of Hebron. Huldra (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Beit HaShalom is a stand alone article. The History of the area that Beit HaShalom stands on (with a Jewish connection) goes back further than appears in the article. Maybe some day someone will get around to expanding it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper Citation

Under the "History" section (see subheading "Antiquity and Israelite period"), a previous editor of this article used Genesis 13:18 as "proof" that Hebron was listed as an Amorite city in the Bible. Genesis 13:18 reads thus:

Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. (KJV)

Strong's Hebrew #H4471 lists "Mamre" as "an Amorite". How does this necessarily prove that the Amorites actually held that city at one point? Aside from Mamre being "an Amorite", there are no other references to Hebron being governed or inhabited by the Amorites anywhere in Scripture. If the plain - and the accompanying "Oak of Mamre" - refer to a former Amorite owner, does that mean that the entire city was Amorite? Or perhaps an Amorite named Mamre sojourned there among foreigners (Canaanites/Kenites/Hittites) like Abraham did? If Hebron was indeed a royal Canaanite city (as the article states, without citation, I might add) that was accessible by one of the major ancient trade routes in that area of the Levant, then I would expect scores of non-Canaanite/Hittite/Kenite tradesmen to be streaming through Hebron en route to Egypt from Damascus. Surely some of them were Amorite, and one or more of them - such as Mamre, perhaps? - might have actually stopped to enjoy the scenery as Abram did.

I vote that the reference to this being an Amorite city be redacted in some way. Aside from the possible Amorite origin of the name "Mamre", there is little proof that Hebron was ever an Amorite city. Jerodian (SPEAK TO ME!!) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshua 10,5 has a more clear statement that Hebron was Amorite. However, all historical claims that rely only on the Bible should be carefully qualified as the Biblical version. There is plenty of doubt out there whether these parts of the Bible correspond much to fact, and also whether the "Amorites" of the Bible have much to do with the "Amorites" of historical reality. Zero^talk 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [1][2] A large body of evidence [3][4] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Bias in many sections of the article

It is not clear to me as to why in the "Post-Oslo Accord" section the statistic of (0.9% of all fatalities in Israel and the West Bank)" was added to "which saw 3 fatal stabbings and 9 fatal shootings in between the first and second Intifada". I can only imagine the intent is to downplay the deaths of the settlers as a minor fraction compared to "Palestinian Suffering". Perhaps this would be better suited to a opinion piece. "To shoot indiscriminately" is a term that is used to describe Israeli fire, "and thousands of rounds fired on it from the hills above the Abu-Sneina and Harat al-Sheikh neighbourhoods". However as just cited it is not a term used to describe the Palestinian machine gun fire into the Jewish quarter. Probably because using this term would require some insight into the shooters discrimination, which I can't imagine anyone had. "Israelis from the Jewish settlements found bordering Hebron (for example Tel Rumeida, Kiryat Arba) continually harass and provoke the indigenous Palestian population." I can't imagine why this does not require citation. I do not understand why Wikipedia editors consistently seek to paint Israel as "The Great Satan", I feel as though the anti-Israel UN justifies this absurd bias with it's continual, Arab and Muslim supported resolutions which rarely have anything to do with facts. The international community which gives peace prizes to Arafat and has the Iranian president come to it's stage with resounding applause to deny the holocaust, is hardly any longer a source to cite for unbiased opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.83.106 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

• Judea (archive)

• Samaria (archive)

• Samaria

• Judea and Samaria (archive)

• Judea and Samaria

• West Bank

• Judea

• Israeli settlement (archive 6)

• Israeli settlement (archive 7)

• Israeli settlement (archive 8)

• Israeli settlement (archive 9)

• Israeli settlement

• [5][6][7][8][9][10]

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

Bias in hebron

i deleted the palestinain israeli conflict section as it was completely bias against iisrael. half o f the items were no cited and those that were cited were cited from well known anti-israeli websites. i call upon the immediate deletion of this article for not only does it have lies but it promotes hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.91.224 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way does it promote hatred? Some of these sites speak about the truth. Those facts are about the truth... The truth happens to not be in favour of Israel.

You are not allowed to delete that part unless you can give some good reasons for it.

--Arsaces (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Population

The cited Palestinian population figure in the introduction and infobox recently more than tripled, from 166,000 to 552,000, an astonishing and spectacular change. How reliable is the new source? Could there be a benign "apples vs. oranges" explanation, such as the new figure including an entire region? The discrepancy should either be accounted for or the edit reverted. The figure as of 1997, cited under "Demographics", was 130,000; an increase to 166,000 in ten years, more or less, is believable. A jump to 552,000 strains credibility. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. The figure of 552,000 is for the Hebron Governate, not for Hebron city. (Can someone fluent in Arabic please read the source carefully and confirm this?) Another official source of PCBS statistics, in English, is here. Maybe there is a 2010 estimate somewhere else; meanwhile I put in the 2007 count from this source. Zero^talk 03:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Hertz1888 (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The figure by the Palestinian authority is probably also wrong too, but since no reliable source exists it is the best wikipedia can do. In the past the residents have avoided the census for tax reasons and the PA has often exaggerated numbers to get more foreign aid - and with the corruption statistics of the PA means more money in the pockets of many PA officials. Obviously, we'll keep a close watch for a good census. 8.19.92.171 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I'd always thought the population of Hebron was between 70 and 110,000 people - that was from around 1995 though, and I suspect bigger now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What country is Hebron in?

A customer in Hebron wants me to ship something via DHL but I can't figure out what the name of the country is. This webpage didn't answer this simple question. :-( --TDKehoe (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) I'd ask your local post office or courier service. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of phrase "Jewish community"

The frequency with which the word is used is irrelevant, an if relevant justifies not using the word based on minimal use elsewhere.

Referring to the settlers as a community implies that it is a normally functioning society of people, as opposed to a militant foothold of 500 radicals, who don't live there most of the year, in a small number of streets.

Calling them a community implies that they are the same as the Palestinians in their in terms of their presence in Hebron.

Hence it is POV.Nwe (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The above commentator is clearly coming with a political agenda of delegitimization of the "jewish community" of Hebron. He says so himself: "implies that they are the same as the Palestinians in their in terms of their presence in Hebron". Surely, it is not for Wikipedia to take stance in such an issue!? As for the discussion below I think it misses the point. The word settler has a negative connotation, and the reasons for its wide usage are likely to be exactly those outlined by the above commentator. If a different cursom would become the prevalent, let's say calling the palestinian residents "usurpers", would that then become the suitable term for Wikipedia? Just as it's easy to think of arguments against a renewed jewish presence in Hebron, so it is to think of reason in favor of just, and Wikipedia should not take stance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.150.11 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Got any basis for these (seemingly strange) opinions?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis is as I've already provided, that the term implies that they are a normally-existing community, which they are not. It is also general practice to refer to settlers in the Palestinian territories as such in order to differentiate them from most communities in the world, which do not serve as political tools of occupation.Nwe (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Community is a simple and a neutral word to describe a group of people living together, which the settlers in Hebron, if I'm not mistaken, are. Any political, economical or military issue should be addressed separately. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also kind of lost here. If a bunch of child rapists decided to live together in one geographic area they can still be described as a "community." I don't think Zionists should fair any worse.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about we take a look at how these people are described in reliable sources instead of attempting to determine a level of normalcy for illegal squatters in occupied territory. The BBC refers to them as "Jewish settlers" regularly: [11], [12], [13]. As does the Guardian: [14], [15], [16]. As does The Times: [17], [18], [19]. Haaretz calls them "settlers": [20], [21], [22], [23]. Why exactly should we not call this "community" what it is, Jewish settlers in a Palestinian city? nableezy - 02:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of RS's using the term "community."[24]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you place such an emphasis on a google search, this might be instructive. 11000+ for settlers compared to 3150 for community. nableezy - 03:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[25] gets 4,560 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a general google search. The other two were google news, but if you wish to compare between general searches Jewish settler gets 70000+ nableezy - 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it is strange that an editor would not allow for the word "community" to be mentioned once in the article, when the term "settler" is spread throughout the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I hadn't given this one much thought before reading this. Erm...undecided and will read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Well they are an enclave as such, a demarcated group, so some collective term describing them would be useful rather than settlers, which implies a sprinkling of them to me - "enclave" is a word we can all live with? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think enclave is a great word to use in the article. From what I understand, the Hebron Jewish community is made up of a bunch of "enclaves" in Hebron, thus calling the community an "enclave" may just not make sense from a technical standpoint.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was just the bit in the centre of town, which is one demarcated bit (not counting Kiryat Arba up on the hill I guess...). I was there in 1995 so that was a while ago now and it seemed to be all together in one place then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: this definition makes "enclave" more descriptive than "community" I feel, as it is certainly not well integrated with the city as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Enclave sounds more like the place, while community sounds more like it's population, isn't it? In the context, not the place comes under attacks but the people. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But we are using 'settlers' when talking about the people. There are some stages when one presumably wants to talk about the area the settlers are in (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess any synonym can be used in both cases, it's purely a question of style. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take a look at the map of Hebron city center (by BTselem) for the settler enclaves in Hebron. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the phrase "Jewish settlers" legitimate in this context? I have been asked to provide a similar case elsewhere. Easy, the Northern Cyprus article, section on Demographics, uses the term settlers a few times, to describe Turks who migrated there since 1974. PatGallacher (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most important is how Hebron Jewish population is referenced in reliable sources (settlers, I guess). You can find a plenty of links in this very thread. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing to see the extent to which the Arabs and other anti-Semites will try to deny Jews' right to this city. It is not illegal for Jews to return to their historic city of Hebron and try to take it back from Arab colonialists and occupiers. Everyone except brainwashed ignoramuses know that Hebron was an Israelite/Jewish city for centuries long before the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs invaded in the sixth century. The Palestinian Arabs are illegal squatters, not the Jews.--FindersSyhn (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Geography

A geography section would be interesting; NPR reports the city is currently experiencing a severe water crisis, and some context would be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As would sections on the local economy; administration; transport; culture; education; and public services. The article is very heavily skewed toward history, to the extent that it is unbalanced. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy city status in Islam

I removed that the city is "also holy to Muslims" as the only sources I can find are from travel guides. Chesdovi (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

REstored, with citations. This is hardly controversial. You can't throw a rock over there without hitting something that jews, muslims and christians think is holy.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and have now distorted it so that it's innacurate. I'll try another swipe at this shortly with different wording. You definitely are a POV pusher, aren't you?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The sanctity of the city is described in detail in the Encyclopedia of Islam article "Khalil". Zero^talk 00:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Hadith... And it's the city of the Muslim patriarch, Abraham. Surly if European Jews find it sacred, then Semite Muslims find it just as sacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.131.9 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy to muslims because of the association with Abraham

Though it's holy to jews largely because of abraham as well, this does not mean that these are the same things. To keep it simple, i've spelled out abraham by name and that's why it's holy to Muslims. Accurate, direct, no ground for confusion that way (fascinating that someone who didn't know that hebron and abraham were venerated in islam yesterday -- and couldn't find sources on the matter -- now has such strong opinions about the matter).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiberian name

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

Dubious statements about status

I've tagged the following statement.

However, Israel disputes that territories such as Hebron are occupied (as they are not the sovereign territory of any nation), and claims that because the Geneva Convention provides for retention of territory for security purposes, its settlements are legal.

The State of Israel in the form of the Supreme Court of Israel recognizes that "the territories of Judaea and Samaria" are under "belligerent occupation" and that they are administered on that basis. There's nothing controversial about it. The HCJ have said this countless times in their case rulings so it's unclear who the "Israel" in the "Israel disputes" statement is referring to. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know, Israeli officials aired the opposite position too. I guess the possible conclusion is that there is no clarity on the position of the State of Israel as such on the matter. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I know government officials have disputed the illegality of the settlement activity in the West Bank but I'm not sure about disputing the occupation status itself given that it's the basis of the military administration. Can you remember where this has come up before, assuming it has ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

May be MFA site. I'll check. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned in WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. Please take a look at this MFA document, from the words "Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as".... Btw, Harlan called it "propaganda" and "outdated", so I don't know how much it worth really. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seal

Regarding this edit, this article is about the city of Hebron, not the settlers group. Chesdovi, you are surely aware that an article exists on the settler's council as you already added the same seal to that article. This article is about the city, which has an official seal. It is beyond absurd to replace the seal of the city with the seal of the settler's council, and it makes no sense for a user to insist that both seals be included. This article is not about the settler's council and as such their seal has no place in the infobox. nableezy - 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally disagree. You cannot wipe off one independant section of the towns population just like that. Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is wiping anything off of anything. The city of Hebron has a municipal seal. That is in the infobox. The city of Hebron also has a number of Israeli settlers illegally occupying an area of the town. That is detailed in the article. The settlers however do not decide what the seal of the city of Hebron is, and as such the seal they have designated for their council does not belong in the infobox for the city. That seal is used where it should be, in the article on the settlers council. Not this one. nableezy - 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The infobox seems to include the whole city. Israeli locations in the WB have seals, and so does their settlement in the Hebron. If you only want it to include the PA area, then rename to Hebron, PNA. Chesdovi (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Israeli settlements include the seal of the local council or town or whatever designation the settlement has according to Israel. The article on the settlers council includes that. That is not in any way analogous to what you are arguing here. The proper analogy between, for exapmle, Ma'ale Adumim and the settlers council in Hebron is the article Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron which includes the settlers seal. nableezy - 17:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. It is for the Israeli section of the town. Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron is a municipal body. Chesdovi (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "Israeli section of the town". There is an area of Hebron held by settlers which they control and which the IDF maintains a presence. Whether or not the settlers committee is a municipal body or not is not all that relevant to this article. The council has its own article, as I have repeatedly said here. And that article contains their seal. The seal is not used by the city in any way and it does not belong in the infobox. The complete removal of the actual seal and replacement with the settler's logo was extremely tendentious. No matter though, your edit was, rightly, reverted. The infobox is about the city of Hebron. The city of Hebron has an official seal. That seal is in the infobox. The end. nableezy - 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I tried to add it to the current one and may have to now merge the image into one image. Wwhat you say s wrong. The PA seal is of the PA city council. The CJCH seal is for the Israeli held section of Hebron. How can it not be represented in the infobox. Indeed, more Israeli info may be added as the city is shared and both need to be represented. The End. Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That wont do. The image in the infobox is the image for the seal of the city. The article is about the city. The settlers council has its own article which has the seal for that council. The city is not "shared", a group of illegal settlers has occupied a portion of the city. Please stop with these word games that distort the facts. The city of Hebron is what this article is about. That city has a seal. That seal is in the infobox. That a group of illegal settlers hold a portion of the city does not negate any of those facts. You dont have consensus for your efforts to add the seal of a group of illegal squatters into the article on this city, and attempts to push it in without consensus will not end well. nableezy - 20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit is unbelievable. Your insistence is noted, but you do not have consensus for such an edit. nableezy - 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The CJCH articel is the same as Hebron Municipaltity. Hebron is featured on the Israel regional council template and directs correctly to the city. This is the same as all other settlemnt pages. You would do well to leave it, or must others make you see sense? Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hebron is not an Israeli settlement. There are Israeli settlers occupying an area of Hebron. The first statement does not follow the second. You would do well to not continue editing with complete disregard for consensus. nableezy - 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop it with talk of "concensus" when just you are objecting! Now, please explain further what is meant by H2 is not an Israeli settlement, even though Israeli settlers occupy part of it? Chesdovi (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was clear on what I wrote. Hebron is not an Israeli settlement. I did not say that H2 is not an Israeli settlement. If you want to include an infobox in the section dealing with H2 you can do that. But Hebron is a Palestinian city in the West Bank, not an Israeli settlement. And you very obviously do not have consensus, given this discussion and this one. nableezy - 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So you do agree that H2 is an Israeli settlement? Chesdovi (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, H2 is an Israeli settlement. Hebron however is not. nableezy - 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And is H2 "in" Hebron? Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You going somewhere with this? If so, kindly get to the point. H2 is in Hebron, H2 is an Israeli settlement. Hebron itself is not an Israeli settlement. This article is about Hebron, not H2. The infobox is about Hebron, not H2. If you want, make an article on H2. I cant say I care. But this articles infobox is not about H2, it is about Hebron. nableezy - 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Hebron, a section of whch is called H2. H2 is a "suburb" and is part and parcel of the town. You seem to be saying the page is ony to be about PA Hebron. So as I said earlier, rename it then. Until then, all parts of Hebron will be represented. Even Shuhadas Street. Don't wipe away a whole section of the town just because it is under Israeli control. Learn to share. Chesdovi (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you dont seem to understand what I am saying. This article is about the city of Hebron, which has an official seal. A portion of this town is illegally occupied by Israeli settlers. That is covered in the article. The illegal part is not important for this next bit, and this is the important part. The article New York City has in the infobox the seal of the city of New York, because that is what the article is about. It does not however have the seal of Brooklyn, or that of the Bronx, or of Queens, or Staten Island, or Manhattan. Each of the articles on the sub-sections of the city of New York has its seal in its article's infobox. Their seals are not however in the infobox of the article New York City. Whether or not a sub-section of Hebron chooses to create a "regional council" and give that "regional council" a seal does not affect what the seal of Hebron is or what seal should be in the infobox. nableezy - 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that the seal is not for H2, its for Hebron. Again, if you feel that this is solely a palestinian town, disambiguate in the title. 4 sq. km of the town is represented by a different official seal which must be shown. It makes no difference what you say about the legalities. For all I care, PA hebron is the recently added sub-section. The pa seal does not represent Hebron in its entirety. Chesdovi (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the PA seal does represent Hebron in its entirety, including the parts that most of the residents cannot go because the occupying army prevents it. To treat the legal and illegal as equal would be quite a travesty. Zero^talk 03:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, a group of Israeli settlers in Hebron do not determine what Hebron's seal is. I dont actually care that you think the "PA hebron is the recently added sub-section". Hebron, the city, has an official seal. A group of settlers does not change that. Their seal is for the settlers council. The article on the settlers council has that seal. The seal in the article now is for Hebron. And the article on Hebron contains the seal of Hebron. You can continue to misrepresent what I have written, as in [I] seem to be saying the page is ony to be about PA Hebron, or you can pay attention to what I am actually writing. The illegal settlers in Hebron have no standing to designate a seal for the city. They can choose whatever they wish to be the seal of their community, or regional council, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, and our article on that council should and does include that seal. However, the article on Hebron will show what the city of Hebron designates as its seal. nableezy - 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The PA have a seal for the city and the Israelis have one for the part of Hebron they govern. You cannot have a infobox on Hebron with only one seal. Just as illegal settlers have seals for other illegal settlements which feature in the infobox, the illegal settlement of Hebron seal must also feature in the infobox about Hebron. The town is shared and therefore it is only correct that both sectors are featured. The seal of Hebron is the seal of Hebron PA council and it is used to represent the whole city. The same goes with the CJCH. The Israeli seal also represents the whole city, including the parts Israelis are verboten to set foot in. It says HEBRON on it, so this is clear. You are not helping to make the article NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Divided cities shows that usually there are two pages to disambiguate is a certain town is split, e.g. Laufenburg. Sometimes two separate sides form a union as in Lloydminster, but this is not the case in Hebron. The case of Hebron is rather like Nicosia, although there is also North Nicosia. If the town is to remain as a single page, like Ghajar, there will need to be changes to the infobox, as has been shown in Nicosia., or something similar to Saint Martin. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Topic ban)

For further study, or can anyone supply illumination?

Moshe Gil's book appears to cite a Christian manuscript's reference to (a) the taking of Hebron from the Byzantines in the 7th century, and (b) the retaking of Hebron from the Crusaders in 1199, as two distinct but identical events. In both a later tradition says that the Jews played a crucial role in supplying the Arab armies with inside information to take a a city that resisted facile siege. Certainly many books talk of this during Byzantine times (cf. the taking of Jerusalem and Cairo, to note two wellknown examples). personally I have often suspected that these reports reflect more Christian antisemitic post factum propaganda(of the type: we could have held out against the Arabs, but Jews stabbed us in the back, etc. But this is just my own suspicion, personal guess, and I can't object to it since RS say this. However, a close examination of Gils suggests he is using the same late medieval Latin manuscript for these two events, and indeed the same passage, and this may well be a lapse. Jewish comunities had good reason to help the Arabs since Christians expelled them on both occasions, and the Jewish hebronite community ended up in either northern Palestine or in Egypt.

On the other hand, I'm sleepyheaded today, and may be just paranoid. Thoughts? Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

In Andrew Petersen: "The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600-1600", "Number of households in Towns of Palestine during Sixteenth century according to Religious affiliation", for Hebron we have on p. 127:

• 1525/6: 133M (Muslim) 0C (Christian) 0J (Jews) 0S (=Samaritans)
• 1538/9 749M 20C 7J 0S
• 1553/4: 969M 8C 0J 0S
• 1562/3: 983M 11C 0J 0S
• 1596/7: 687M 11C 0J 0S

Now; according to the present article, it only gives the population in 1538/9...and there it has exchanged the number of Christian and Jewish household! Either Cohen & Lewis (1978) has a printing error....or Petersen has. OR: it has been misquoted. Can someone please check Cohen & Lewis, it they have access to it? And the other numbers ought to be added. (I don´t think if we should add the Samaritan group, though, as there were none -at least during this time- in Hebron). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll check Cohen and Lewis. I see 7C 20J in a paper of Lewis so that's probably right. Zero^talk 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew the man -our last hope for the desperately needed ever elusive facts- would zero in on that! May be interesting adding the stats on pop stability earlier, you can get them here, scroll to page 31 Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, Petersen (the book was uploaded to archive.org a couple of weeks ago....I had no idea that it was free of copy-right....I recommend you to down-load it ASAP! It is a treasure trove.) Anyway, on p.125, Petersen writes that base his works on Ottoman records in Heyd, Uriel (1960): Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1615, Oxford University Press; Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977; Cohen & Lewis, 1978: "Population and revenue in the towns of Palestine in the sixteenth century"; Bakhit 1982; and the above Singer, 1994. All are well known (perhaps except Bakhit 1982: "Ottoman Province of Damascus in the 16th Century")

Anyway, here is a problem: according to Singer, 1994, p.31, the Hebron population was:

• 1545: 969M 0C 8J .......... (That is the above 1553/4 result -with C & J exchanged)
• 1560: 983M 0C 11J ........ (That is the above 1562/3 result -with C & J exchanged )

We better check the other sources, too. I suspect that one scholar has looked up the actual data ....then lots of others have quoted/misquoted(?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Where there's a conflict in sources one gives both versions. Where an error has been made, the cite should have an accompanying note to that effect. At least that's my practice. Singer's data looks like an inversion, but generally I have a good impression of her work, and coincidentally, as she gives it, the accords with Jewish records, which disagree with Ottoman census data. The stats' picture, these were gathered for tax purposes also, (remember that the Hebronite communities lived on handouts from abroad and were dirt-poor) conflicts with Jewish tradition, since Jewish sources give 10 Karaite families (Schwarz 1850) while the Ottoman records in Peterson give 0. Again, this source, which is not quite RS speaks of a large resettlement of Jews into Hevron in 1540, led by Hakham Malkiel Ashkenazi, who is given as setting up an institutional centre that flourishes, where Petersen p.135 Table 3 sets the year before and speaks of 7 households, which however immediately disappear from the registers for the rest of the century, when no Jews are recorded there. There must be a good book somewhere, or a PhD in the making on the intricate history of Jewish emigration to Palestine for 1500-1796, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I definitely do not think you should use Arutz7 as a source on Hebron history... The problem with books like Schwarz, 1850, is that they remind me very much of the type of books -and booklets- some Scandinavian emigrants to N-America wrote for the "home market" in the 19th cent.: They wanted to encourage more emigration, so they portrayed N-America as paradise on earth (or close to it). The reality could be very different, of course. I wonder how 19th cent. history of USA would look on WP....if we only used similar emigrants literature, aimed for the "home" market? Don´t get me wrong: I think we should use Schwarz, ...just put in context. Anyway, I have ordered a copy of Bakhit, 1982, (the others I can get at the library). (Btw: wonderful to see you back on I/P -area, Nishidani!....I gather your topic-ban was lifted :)  :) :) :) :) ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of refs should be there, and that the best thing to do is to use a few fundamental books. However, as the page janitor, coming back after that strike that got me fired until a recent upturn in market opportunities made my CV acceptable despite the black record as a unionist, I thought the way to go was just to clean up the page, making one citational template, for whatever was there. Once that's done we can cut back the refs to the bare minimum, on the principle of trying to find just one soure for several points. Sure Schwarz 1850 and a lot of other stuff can be dicky, but unlike us, those chaps had no TV and had to spend several hours a day travelling or reading deeply and they still conserve a lot of material that goes by the board. I'm minded to get rid of most of the journalistic or web stuff including Arutz, who, in any case is a second hander. I thought of doing this a few years ago (I think I included him) but didn't and my reluctance is due to realizing the author has links to the Sephardic community of Hebron, and their story is never really given a hearing, ever since the Ashkenazi got the upper hand. There was a considerable degree of tension between the two communities from the mid 19th century down to 1929. The whole story deserves a short monograph, but this is not the page to divagate on it. Thanks for the welcome back. There's a lot of interesting company around, and it's nice to work a page cooperatively and thoroughly. Cheers, pal Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That Demographic chart's quite messy. I wish there was one good source, since the composite sourcing creates all sorts of problems. I'm not quite sure we should have the Jewish Virtual Library Hebron page as a source for difficult material like this. We need demographic specialists like Gad Gilbar's work on Ottoman Palestine:1800-1914 (BRILL 1990) and the others already mentioned. Can anyone more familiar with this make some suggestions for revision? We have 1,500 Jews in 1895 in one source, and 700 qua Ottoman subjects ten years later, in 1905, in another source. A 1,000 on the eve of WW1, 750 at war's end. This is all very fascinating but it only begs (answers exist) as to why these fluctuations, either in the record dissonances, or sociological reasons, occur. I'd like to see some objective evidence about those 1800-1850 stats, which is not the impression one gets from the many traveller accounts of the period. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons. The most important is that estimating population correctly without actual counting is close to impossible. A lesser reason regarding Jews is that the Ottoman tax registers (somewhat inaccurately called "censuses") did not usually include non-Ottoman citizens. A large fraction of Jews in some places were in this category. Zero^talk 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that censuses, censurally indeed. I see that in Gilbar. But I would expect that the premodern communities must have been registered as Ottoman citizens. In any case, I just look at the Jerusalem page, with its neat demographic model, not divided by religious faith. Our narrative gives (unless we decide to revise) a quite extensive coverage of demographic fluctuations in the Jewish population, and I don't see why two or three lines describing the aliyah influx and its fortunes (1500(preWW1)/750 (post WW1)/one or two after the 1929 massacre) couldn't replace the mess we have.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I have Cohen and Lewis. It is a very technical analysis of the Ottoman taxation registers. It is clear that Petersen has Jews and Christians exchanged in all the years mentioned, as C&L present the data in fine detail even breaking Hebron into its quarters. I can also explain how the numbers in Singer agree except for the year. These were not censuses conducted at a given moment in the modern style but rather surveys compiled using the most recent data from each location. Thus the population data in year 945 (1538-9) of Hebron is reported in the survey of 952 (1545-6). I propose that we restrict the 16th century values to Cohen and Lewis source only. There are missing persons in our table too, for example as well as 749 Muslim households in 1538-9, there were 227 bachelors and 29 religious persons (there is disagreement amongst sources whether this category included non-Muslim religious), also 1 tax-exempt disabled Jew. Zero^talk 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Parfitt's book "The Jews of Palestine, 1800-1882" lists 32 population estimates for Hebron during that period. Zero^talk 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there any way we can just use these 3 academic sources, in one footnote, to reformat the demographic schema, so that we are given a good overall picture of fluctuations for the period surveyed. I'm uncomfortable with the patchy way it's been constructed, and the rather shaky sourcing used? I'm a hopeless numbskull handling anything to do with graphics, and usually suck the technical expertise out of people like Johnuniq and Nableezy when such issues arose. But if we could manage to adjust that, the data, grounded in academic works, would be a creditable net-gain for the page.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Fisk

In 1835, Mr Fisk, an American missionary, visited Hebron. He estimated that there about 400 Arab and 120 Jewish families; the Jewish population having significantly dropped since the 1834 rebellion.

I haven't checked the source (1854) citing him but Pliny Fisk visited Hebron in 1824 not 1835, and his memoir Memoir of the Rev. Pliny Fisk, late missionary to Palestine, was published in 19281828, three years after his death. Pages 369-72 say no such thing. I've read his bio Heroes and martyrs of the modern missionary enterprise,P. Brockett, 1854 pp.373-384 just to check for other possibilities, and turned up nothing. A secondary consideration is that we have quite a bit about population numbers without harvesting too much detail, especially when it is, like thi, dubiously sourced.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it either and I agree we don't need it. Zero^talk 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably it was George Fisk, see this book, which however doesn't seem to have population figures. Zero^talk 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chapeau. The original year for the data, however, was 1835, too late for Pliny Fisk while this Fisk visited Palestine in 1842 (?). Between 1824 and 1842 there must be then a third Fisk, unless, sorry for the untranslatable pun, we are taking fischi per fiaschi! Memorable that wording for the moving vignette on p.239 on miserably poor Jews trudging passing their tents towards Jerusalem, 'aliens from their own birthright'. Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict coda

I asked Hertz1888 if he could help on this, but haven't had a reply yet. If you look at many pages like Jerusalem or Safed, you don't get a huge barrage of note-taking on the violence in the recent histories of those cities. It was written in the usual POV tit for tat fashion, with someone giving a grievance incident, followed by another POVer 'balancing' that with some grievous incident on the other side and is not appropriate to an article with 4,000 years of history. There is a separate page for this, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron, and in my view most of these incidents should be removed there, with just a generic section on post-1967,(a) the move back to Hebron (b) violent conflict has occurred, illustrated only by events significant enough to have a wiki page already on them (b) post-Oslo accords. I imagine though that a huge POV donnybrook could break out, and therefore think this should be thoroughly discussed beforehand. Certainly, Hebron stands singled out, among cities in the area, for the highlighting it gives to incidents, versus narrative synthesis. Any suggestions?Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

General points

I've done most of a general reorganization, save for the last bit- here are some reflections.

• (1)500 Jewish settlers concentrated in and around the old quarter.[2][3][4][5]

--I remember a long source battle to get the numbers up or down. Most sources over the last decade see a fixed if fluctuating population inside Hebron of some 500 people (roughly 85 families). We have far too many sources on this. If we can agree on 500 as the general consensus (so far), I would suggest that (a) we retain the one and best source for that statement and (b) move the others to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Hebron page. --This would (a) conserve the work and details (b) get a lot of useless templating of one-off sources off this page. ?Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1929 massacre. Any questions?

In the archives here and on the specific wiki page devoted to the 1929 slaughter at Hebron, there was a long discussion on the wording and sources. Most sources give 67 murdered, yet most sources on everything merely copy and paste. I never noticed anything askew until one day, while reading a book by Martin Gilbert, I saw the figure of 59, which seemed odd for such a careful historian. He was apparently reporting directly the figures from the Palestinian Post's reports on the massacre for August and September 1929. I'd also elsewhere, but rarely, seen the figures of 64, 65, aside from the standard 67. So I did a long investigation on the issue, even going to the trouble of listing all the names of the victims, and checking (no WP:OR here, since I drew no personal conclusions, but simply wanted to figure out which of the sources got the facts straight so we could use them). I found out that the differences were due to (a) the number buried immediately after the event 59, then (b) as several of the survivors died of their wounds, increased to 67 over the ensuing weeks (c) of those included in the 67 figure two apparently died, one of a heart attack and another of the sheer shock and age, after witnessing the onslaught. My problem then was how to phrase this. Use 'kill', 'slaughter', 'murder' for 67 is just so slightly imprecise. Certainly 64 (as Kimmerling and Migdal report) died as a direct result of wounds suffered by the Hebronite onslaught. 67 remains the correct figure (I can't account for just one of the three that make up the difference) but it seems 2 or 3 weren't 'murdered', despite the best efforts of their assassins, but died of shock. I know this niggling looks clumsy, and I am not overly attached to being a precisian about such delicate matters of correct reportage of a massacre. It's just that I know some sources, eminently respectable, do report the different figure, and the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved if we give due notice of such dissonances in the literature. ? Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) I guess if the toll is widely cited as 67 then 67 it is (I guess it can be written as "Official toll is recorded at 67..." or somesuch). It can be elaborated upon as you spell out from sources like you have above. Detail is helpful here.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It can't be 'official' because the Mandatory statistics are not being used here. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am thinking of something that conveys what sources say the usual number is "Death toll agreed upon as 67" or somesuch, which conveys this without the text conveying the number as gospel, IFYKWIM. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's late here. I won't give you the full Monty, but significant academic sources give a minority view of 64 murdered and 54 wounded (we have 60 wounded). Do we just ignore this?

• Ted Swedenburg, Memories of revolt: the 1936-1939 rebellion and the Palestinian national past, 2003, p.220 (54 wounded)
• J. Bowyer Bell, ''Terror out of Zion: the fight for Israeli independence, 1977 p.5 (64/54). Incidentally, Bowyer Bell was sympathetic to the Irgun. Swedenburg is, I think, sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative. None of which has much to do with the issue at hand, but does illustrate that the dissonance is not in itself a question of POV-mongering. Well, to bed. There's no hurry.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agh, you wanna just list all the sources here once and for all, then we can discuss, get a consensus for what the article should say...and stake this debate through the heart and consign it to the archives once and for all? I am a neophyte in this area, but did have a hankering to get Hebron to GA or FA as I spent one of the weirdest days of my life there (on a day trip from Jerusalem). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need several experienced senior editors on board on articles like this, just to keep us honest, ensure that the rhythm of editing is relatively efficient, so that some of these tortured pieces in the I/P area become not only readable, but adequate to at least GA specifications. Much appreciated. I haven't the slightest idea of what GA/FA requirements entail technically, and invariably wait for experts to prompt me and others, point by point, or to fix the technical side, so if you can push me and others along with pointers, all to the good. We may not get there (GA, I think FA impossible), but the benefits of trying will improve the text. It should take several months, barring hitches!, since so far what we've got, and I assume some responsibility for this, leaves much to be desired. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that would be more appropriate at 1929 Hebron massacre? Incidentally, if there is an "official" death toll, it would be the one given by the Shaw commission. I think it was 67 but I can look it up if necessary (my library has the original). Zero^talk 04:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably it's best to work it out there 1929 Hebron massacre. But when I tried to work that page, I just ended up wasting months in futile controversy. At the 1929 Safed pogrom (wrong title, since 'pogrom' in the technical literature means, stricto sensu, a massacre with tacit government consent), whoever edited it had no problem noting that there is some dispute over the figure.(By the way, that page is disgracefully brief, and would benefit from editors taking some time to, if not memorialize, then certainly do justice to the historical facts and the victims).

I checked Shaw (1930) years ago, and if you could recheck it thoroughly we'd be in your debt. My notes just have the following: 'More than 60 Jews — including many women and children —were murdered and more than 50 were wounded.' p.64. I haven't got access to the vol. now, however, and perhaps there is more detail than I excerpted). The Peel Commission document of 1937 varies this, uselessly, with 'over sixty'. That's why I said we haven't got official figures here. I'm not quite happy with official reports since they are written with political consequences in mind, and indulge in vagueness or euphemism far too much. If we can't find an official source at the time establishing the precise range or figure, we are back to 'Go'.

I might add that Neil Caplan (he deserves a wiki bio) is very reliable for period reports, since he studied under Bernard Lewis and Elie Kedourie, and actually, unlike most, does detailed archival research, and he repeats the Shaw Commission's results in his Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, The Great Powers, and Middle East Peacemaking 1948-1954, Frank Cass 1983, vol.1 (Early Arab-Zionist Negotiation Attempts, 1913-1931) p.82 just says 'sixty orthodox men, women and children'. That is totally unacceptable, though official, because 64-5 were definitely murdered. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(nods knowingly without a clue what everyone is talking about) okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Cas. Shaw Report (1930) and Peel Commission Report (1937) were two British enquiries into Palestine, the former specifically on the massacres of 1929. Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nish, your finding on page 64 of the Shaw Report is the only mention of casualties specifically in Hebron. There can be more in the accompanying records of testimony (which I have) but that wouldn't be official. One day I am going to get energetic and scan this report. It isn't trivial because it's on microfiche. Zero^talk 09:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for taking the trouble. I wouldn'ìt worry about getting energetic. The nice thing about this place is we don't have deadlines, and hurry's the ruin of many an article. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring afoot?

Brewcrewer. Your edit summary reads:

(rv. this massacre was far more atrocious and hence had long lasting infamy, that is drelevant and discussed in contrmporary times. clearly a "notable controversy" per LEDE policy)

The prior editor, a newbie who, after a handful of edits on one page, just manages to notice of 7000 articles, Hebron and popped in to plunk that bit about the 1929 massacre in the lede. Well, it's not exactly suspicious, but. . .this happens a lot round here, and I think all editors should be very careful in evaluating that kind of out-of-nowhere editing to a page that has a long history of POV battles.

• (a)There is no 'controversy' about the massacre, so your justification per LEDE does not stand
• (b) Set this kind of precedent in wiki articles on cities, and you will have virtually every lead in articles on towns and cities in eastern Europe opened up to the same edit. Vilna, Lviv, Budapest, Warsaw, all had atrocious massacres and pogroms after 1929. I don't think we should 'exceptionalize' this sector. Otherwise the lead at Lod will have POV junkies battling to get that figure of 250 Palestinian deaths in 1948.
• (c)One should think thrice before supporting virtually anonymous edits that look distinctly like they are cueing for a pointless revert battle.
• (d) In best practice, you don't fiddle round with leads that took several years to get consensus on, by barging in with a major change. You argue that, as an experienced wikipedian like yourself should know, by proposing it first on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seminal moment

Abraham's purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs from the Hittites constitutes a seminal moment in the development of a Jewish attachment to the land.

This is one of the lines that nag at me every time I read the page. I think it is now widely accepted that the narrative of Abraham, like the northern Joseph stories at Shechem etc., is embroidered out of tribal legends and mythistory as part of the Judean writing of the Biblical charter 8th-6th centuries BCE. It was, retroactively a seminal moment in much later writing on identity, which however reflected the intentions of the priestly drafters. Something like:-

The story of Abraham's purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs from the Hittites legitimised the immigrants’ purchase of land in the host country (Francesca Stavrakopoulou,Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Veneration in Biblical Land Claims, Continuum Publishing 2010 p.37) and came to be regarded as a seminal moment in Jewish attachment to the land.(source needed).

Stavrakopoulou's book is very good on all of this. There were three sites written up as marking by their (re)foundational stories the establishment of a purchase on the land, and Hebron was one. Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Subjective article?

I have a feeling that the article is nonobjective by being slightly pro-Palestinian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but throughout history there have been more Jewish settlers killed rather than Palestinians, and the article sends a feeling that it is the opposite. I am not making any political statement, that's just what I resent when reading this. 94.159.239.207 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

'throughout history there have been more Jewish settlers killed rather than Palestinians'. Could you clarify this? Hebron has a 3,000 year history, pagan, Jewish, Islamic Christian, etc. We cover this, not 4 decades of tension.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

notice you did not respond to the point raised.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, please note that you failed to see that the remark made was meaningless, and that by asking the anon for clarity I was being courteous. The remark, Brewcrewer, is meaningless because 'throughout history' refers to 4,000 years, whereas the reference to 'Jewish settlers' implies that he/she had in mind either the biblical myth of Abraham the sojourner's settlement in an imaginary year dot, or to events post 1967, when the binome Palestinians/Jewish settlers takes on a precise verifiable meaning. (b) The anon suggests, without any source, the number of settlers killed in Hebron since 1967 is higher than the number of Palestinian Hebronites killed. Highly questionable. Intelligent comments elicit responses. Remarks that are garbled are usually ignored. Neither the IP nor yourself in this case seem to care much about the natural construal of the English language. But, as courtesy demands, I have replied to both of you. Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom in 1834?

Chesdovi. You've just created a highly suspect page 1834 Hebron pogrom, and now linked it to the mention of the 1834 assault on the town mentioned here. All of this smacks of POV point-scoring. A pogrom is a very specific form of violence, certainly what occurred in 1929 was a pogrom. But the events of 1834 were directed overwhelmingly at the Turkish and Arab population, as the histories narrate, and not with the specific intent of killing Jews, which is what the word pogrom suggests. If your slipshod usage were accepted, all death tolls of Jews over 4 killed in war, amidst many other slaughtered citizens, would count as 'pogroms', and historians of history, and Jewish history, are not in the habit of obliterating distinctions. I suggest you do a bit more work on that woeful article, or else it will go for deletion. It seems just tailor-made to provide a link to this page, has poor spelling as well by the way.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why Chesdovi would respond considering almost every sentence in your comment included a personal insult.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If I put into the Hebron article everything I document, on day to day reports, on what the settler enclave does, in order to whip the reader up into a lachrymose state, the article would be unworkable. Anyone who reads this stuff attentively knows that unspeakable thuggishness is a very one-sided activity there: as anthropologists and sociologists themselves have recently argued a culture of contemptuous harassment is a programmatic part of the settler culture there. But we keep it out because this is an encyclopedia, and not a page where people play games to crank up a POV. The substance of my remark was that he is abusing the word 'pogrom'. He can reply to that.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

8,700 Jews in 1816?

John Edwards Caldwell, The Christian herald, page 395. Or maybe 700? Chesdovi (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite excessive. Parfitt lists 32 population estimates from 1806 to 1882 and none of them are anywhere near that high. The estimates near 1816 are 1000 in 1812-16 and 500 in 1817-18, which Parfitt describes as "patently wrong" and "rather high" (for reasons that he gives). Actually 8,700 is in the region of the total population, maybe your source thought they were all Jews. Zero^talk 08:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Figures from tourists who hadn't even visited Hebron are best ignored, in favour of whatever data the modern specialists on demographics give. Most inhabitants there depended on halukkah handouts from the diaspora, and this set a severe constraint on the size of these communities throughout the Ottoman period. Many accounts, further, confuse figures for an sanjuk with those for the district's capital. Turner's figure is hearsay, he never went to Hebron. He even believed that apart from Jews, only Turks lived in Hebron. A second point, the large swings over a decade in reported numbers, besides being intrinsically odd, may have a vague connection with the attested function of most Jewish 'emigration' in this period, which was, at the end of one's life, to die in the Holy Land. Turner reports that the vast majority were old women. I.e. we are making no distinction between settled Jewish communities, and influxes of the aged, or sick there for religious purposes.Lastly, could editors please pay attention to the whole text. Dotting it with snippets regardless of the narrative flow just creates work. We jump from the economy and demographics into the events of 1834 without any transition making for an ugly leap, from Jewish population to 750 soldiers conscripted a decade later during the rebellion. Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)