Talk:Hebron glass

Hebron trade beads

I have seen information about Hebron beads used as Trade beads, (that is, exported to Africa,) from the early/mid 19th century. I have found the following sources:

*Dubin, Lois Sherr (1995): The History of Beads, London : Thames and Hudson ISBN 0 500 27851 2

• Francis, Peter (1999): Beads of the World: A Collector's Guide With Price Reference, ISBN 076430884X
• Arkell, A. J. (1937): Hebron Beads in Durfur, Sudan Notes and Records 20(2):300-305.[1]

I think I can get the Dubin book through a local library. I don´t think I can get any version of the Francis book, however, it is available on abebooks. If anybody has the Francis book available and adds the information, it would be great. Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the Dubin-book: nothing about Hebron beads there, unfortunately. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that the article is now a B-class. I have checked, and it looks as if the only way for me to get hold of the Francis-book is to buy it. Something I don´t feel like doing just now: my house is already bursting with books. I would very much appreciate if anybody else added material from that book, if they can. However, I do think I can get the Arkell -article in "Sudan Notes and Records." (The local University-library has a first-class Sudan-section.) With time I will try to check it out. Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start an Amazon account hopefully by the end of this week so I'm planning on buying a number of books including the Dabdoub Nasser book on Palestinian cuisine and the one you suggested by Aziz Shihab (There are a lot of recipes in that book and there's probably some info on history. I added info about coffee culture to the cuisine artcile from the online preview of that book) Anyway, I'll buy the Francis book as well if it is available. I'm going to Palestine next month and I won't be too active for about four weeks so I need to get the books ASAP. Inshallah this article will reach GA status someday like Nabulsi soap. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just gotten the Aziz Shihab book two days ago! Yes, there are a lot of recipes there; If there is anything you want: tell me. Rather buy the Francis book! (Also: remember: the Francis-book came in several editions; try to get the latest edition, as he apparently expanded for each edition. ) I have ordered the Dabdoub Nasser-book 3-4 times now, but each time I have gotten the message back that it was sold out.

Also: did you notice the two books I added on Cinema of Palestine? That looks like good scholarly sources to me: maybe we should target that article as another potential GA candidate? (So far I have basically just added links to articles/people that are relevant. The text need lots and lots of expansion...). Both this article and Nabulsi soap are great fun; but lets face it: Cinema of Palestine is more important. And <sob>, what will WP:WikiProjectPalestine do with both you and Tiamut away! <sob><sob>Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PS: do take a lot of pictures! Especially of depopulated villages, if you have any chance!!

I am so excited you have the A Taste of Palestine book by Aziz Shihab! I don't want to put a load on you or anything, but some info on native Hebron foods in the "West Bank" section in Palestinian cuisine would be useful and as you already know, the "History" section is lacking in info, so if you find anything on that subject you should add it to the article. I'll buy the Francis-book by the end of the week (God-willing) and I'll try to get the Dabdoub book as well. I recently created an article on Omar al-Qattan and I would like to work on Cinema of Palestine soon. I got my last 4 exams in the next two days and then I'm pretty much free to edit for the next month. I got a while till I leave to the homeland but when I get there, I will certainly take pictures (mostly of Galilee villages near Kafr Yasif and Majd al-Krum like al-Birwa, az-Zeeb, Umm al-Faraj or al-Ruways). You also make a good point. There's clearly a lack of editors in WP Palestine. Maybe when I go there I'll encourage some English-speakers to join in (I doubt any will do so though, but hey it's worth a try). Please tell me you will be able to edit during the mid-summer! If not, I'm afraid there'll be a drought in activity in Palestine-related articles until August or September! In the meantime, there are a lot of articles that could be transformed into good articles. Like you said, there is Cinema of Palestine and I've been thinking, why not Bayt Jibrin! Its a depopulated village so all we really need is a lot of history (which you have provided) and info on the population

(easy) and you have added considerable info on the village's culture. Maybe a section on the village structure (economy, schools if any, local government if any) would be useful too. Finally I've had my eye on Gaza as well. Tell me what you think, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First: The A Taste of Palestine book: there isn´t really "historical" information, unless you call what happened in his life-time as "historical". The one bit about Hebron of interest is that Shihab went there, as a young journalist in 1948, in order to interview the then Mayor of Hebron, Sheikh Mohammad Ali Al-Jabari (a "super politician" ), and that he and two other journalists were invited to stay for dinner in his "luxurious home". According to Shihab, p. 39: "My favorite among the dozen entrees was a green pepper and lamb casserole called Lahm wa-filfil. For an appetizer, the tahina dip was superiour. The cucumber-sour cream salad helped reduce the fatty taste of the lamb." Shihab then gives the recipes for these three dishes (Lahm wa-filfil, p. 40, Tahina salad, p.41, Cucumbers with dill and sour cream, p.41.) Does this help?

And secondly, yes; Cinema of Palestine and Bayt Jibrin are definitely candidates. Remember to get a picture of some cinema showing a Palestinian film, if you can!! A close-up of the posters would be very nice... And, eh, I cannot promise that I will edit a lot this summer, though it is tempting (especially as I just got these new books (including Khalidi: All that remains.) We will see..

Thirdly: best of luck on your exams! (May I ask what level it is?) And how on earth do you have time to edit WP with exams just around the corner??

And yes: WP Palestine is extremely thinly populated. However, I remember when it was much, much worse. I remember when I first started here, I found this: Category talk:Palestinian people. Nice, eh? Oh well, it did serve one purpose: provoking me to become a contributor on Palestinians issues ;-D Take care, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• His personal life would not be historical, but that segment on Hebron would be. I hope in the future, once we gather enough info, we could split the West Bank section into Jabal Nablus, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the Hebron Hills.
• I don't know if Israeli cinemas (My family lives in the Galilee) play Palestinian films, but I'm going to one so I'll keep my eyes open. I'm glad you got the Khalidi book (Is is informative enough?)
• There just 11th grade finals (not a big deal, I'm doing pretty good so far). Today I have my last two (weightlifting and biology if you're curious ;)
• Maybe when everyone's back we'll brainstorm on how to improve this project and Palestine-related articles. (WP Palestine is actually the best Arab wikiproject as far as quality and quantity go).

I hope to see your edits on my watchlist soon, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Khalidi-book is extremely informative, its one draw-back is that it is HUUUUge, ..you really ougth to be a weight-lifter to handle it ;-P

There is another book which is also extremely informative, and that is Guy le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems. It has been reprinted many, many times, but it was originally published in around 1890. The one argument *against* buying it is that since it is that old, it is not unlikely that the text will be released at a free site, say gutenberg.org, sometime in the future. It has an ooold text about food -yes, I will copy it-- Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on GA

This discussion is from Talk:Glass. I have transfered it here, as discussions about this article should take place here. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebron glass is not as prominent as say Roman glass or Anglo-Saxon glass, but it is (was) famous throughout the Arab world and noted by Western travelers. We in WikiProject Palestine have discussed whether to nominate it for GA status, and we generally agree that it is of Good article quality. What do you guys think is missing? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article Glassblowing I can read under the section Origins that this revolutionary technique was invented by the Phoenicians somewhere along the Syro-Palestinian coast around 50 B.C. In the article Hebron glass it is stated that the glass industry was established in the Palestinian region during Roman rule, starting at 63 B.C. - In my opinion, the invention of glassblowing is so important that a possible connection between these events should be discussed in the article Hebron glass. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do see a reference there to the Phoenicians under the "Production" section. The article looks to be well sourced and concise, and fairly well written. There are a few errors in the "Historical" section, mostly regarding style, which I might point out. The second and third paragraphs of this section are covering the exact same point, and should be one paragraph. The first line in the third paragraph states there were "no less than fourteen glass factories of glass". Unless the factories were actually made of glass, (which they may have been, I don't know), this appears to be either a typo or a redundency. There is a line in the second paragraph where I believe the word "posits" has been used incorrectly, (posit meaning: to place something somewhere. ie: "I posit my hand on your shoulder, as a sign of frindship."), but I may also be wrong. The only other problem I see is the quote from Robert Sears in the last paragraph. A sentence in a quote should be given in its entirety, especially if there is more than one sentence. If something is omitted from the quote, then brackets, [], should be placed within the quote where the omitted information was, often with a word or phrase that can be used in place of the omission, (ie: Al Ameer son said above, "Hebron glass is not as prominent as say [other types], but it is (was) famous throughout the Arab world and noted by Western travelers.") Otherwise, so far, I don't see anything else that might cause a problem as far as style is concerned. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

About the Robert Sears quote, could you tell me what was omitted? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input! I myself am certainly not a major contributor to the article (that's Huldra and Timaut), but I will make the necessary edits mentioned above and will nominate it for GA if they don't. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you, I learned something new today, and that makes it all worth while. Perhaps some of the information contained in the sources could be used to help the "Islamic world" subsection of the Glass article. I don't have access to these sources myself, and I don't know what was omitted from the quote. (That was something that left me wondering.) The quote seems to start in mid-sentence, and, although it makes sense, it does not fit WP:Style for quotations. Maybe the quotation marks are just in the wrong place, and should start at the word Hebron's, but someone with access to the source should correct it. Zaereth (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea about adding to the "Islamic world" subsection and I'll tell Huldra or Tiamut about the quote. Also, the sources might be available on google books. I'll look into it. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry to have overseen the reference to the Phoenicians under the "Production" section. Maybe it would be good then to put the history section in the historical context, so it would be difficult to oversee the Phoenicians the next time. I mean, glass making did not start from scratch in Hebron at 63 B.C. Otherwise I think the article Hebron glass is very interesting to read. It is also a good idea to improve the Islamic world section is the main glass article, including a reference to Hebron glass.--Afluegel (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea to me, as a reference to the Phoenicians would definitely be of historical context. After reading through quotations, it appears that adding an ellipsis (...) to the front of the quote may be sufficient, as long as the first half of the sentence does not contain relevent information. That would make it less disconcerting for the reader. (ie: Afluegel talks about improving the main article, "...including a reference to Hebron glass.")Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest we replace the bit about Phoenicians in the "Production" section with one in the "History" section or keep the current bit and add another one to "History"? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)It seems to me that the line in the "Production" section helps to clarify the blowing techniques, so I would say add rather than replace. But my knowledge of glass is somewhat limited beyond the technical aspects. What do you think, Afluegel?" Zaereth (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I found the quote on google books. The entire quote reads as follows: "The population of Hebron is considerable: the inhabitants manufacture glass lamps, which are exported to Egypt. Provisions are abundant, and there is a considerable number of shops." I think the entire quote should be preserved, as per Wikipedia policy. The ellipsis should only be used to circumvent long, rambling, or irrelevent text. Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice research! I'll update it now. Also, should we go ahead with adding the Phoenicians bit, or wait until Afluegel responds? --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am never in a hurry to improve an article, but would rather perform some in depth research before making any changes, but if you have some more information to add, then certainly make the changes. I think it should not simply be a repeat of the information in the "Production" section, but rather, more information. I think Afluegel and others from the Glass article would be far more helpful in this area than myself, and if you wait a few days, and perform a little research, some more responses may come forth and perhaps a more concise edit can be made. Check Talk:Glass every once in a while, as some people may choose to respond there. I'll continue scan the article for possible style and grammerical errors, but I believe the article already looks better. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I was just looking at some photos of some of this beautiful glass on google images. I am a big fan of colorful photos, and I think if its possible to include one it would really help. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Zaereth, I think your suggestion about a small addition in the history section is fine. The Production section is good as it is. Maybe you could add in the history section something about the Phoeniciens being very active in glass making and inventing glass blowing in and very close to Palestine. It is possible that the people in Hebron learned from there. I have a glass history book (R. W. Douglas: A history of glassmaking, G T Foulis & Co Ltd, Henley-on-Thames, 1972, ISBN 0854291172) which could be used as reference for these statements.--Afluegel (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the article from a selection from google books "As the ancient Phoenician glass industry shrank from the exposed cities along the eastern Mediterranean coastline, the industry migrated inland, to Hebron in particular.(Perrot, Chipiez and Armstrong, 1885, p.328.) Do you think we should add a sentence (or two) of background before the above segment? By the way, if you have anything on the Hebron-Phoenician glass relation from your book, please add! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Al Ameer son, thank you. Your addition about the Phoenicians looks good. I think we should not add too much more here, because the topic is really Hebron glass. In my glass history book I could not find any reference to the Hebron-Phoenician glass relation, mainly because to early history section up to the 19th century is very short in this book. - Another topic: The article Hebron referres only in a rather unimportant location to Hebron glass, but it talks about glass all the time. I think this could be improved, at least with a link in the section "See also" in the article Hebron. --Afluegel (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for my very late reply. I added the see also link to the Hebron page. As for this article, everything seems in order now for a GA (there could be some grammatical or MoS errors somewhere, but this could fixed quickly if spotted in the review). I'm going to nominate it today or tomorrow, any objections? Thank you guys so much for your help. I hope the Glass project kicks off sometime next month hopefully, and I'll get to the Islamic era of glass soon. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me, Al Ameer son. Good luck with your nomination. I'm sure whatever problems may exist are mere formalities, and the review committee should have no problem sorting them out. It should be a walk in the park. Zaereth (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, good luck...--Afluegel (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite to address close paraphrasing issues

Please see Talk:Hebron glass/Temp. If someone can review this and reinstate the article that would be great. Tiamut^talk 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the content in the rewrite needed to be removed or further revised, as I'm afraid it would very likely have constituted a derivative work of the primary source. (We recommend rewriting problematic content from scratch rather than modifying what you have, as it is difficult to avoid creating a derivative work when you incrementally modify an article that is an issue.) However, the bulk of the rewrite seems to be fine, and I've implemented it. I'm not inviting a GA review, but would invite you to do so if you're unsure if the current version articles meets those criteria. Thanks for rewriting the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Palestinan invention Category

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

there two main claims as to why this should be removed:

1. Hebron glass dose not cross the threshold to count as an invention, a variation or an art style;

2. even if Hebron glass was an invention, calming it as Palestinian invention is cultural appropriation and warping of history.

first, we need to examine what is an invention, and if Hebron Glass cross the threshold to count as one. "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process. An invention may be an improvement upon a machine, product, or process for increasing efficiency or lowering cost. It may also be an entirely new concept."

is Hebron glass have a uniq method composition, idea or process? if so how? the only things that make Hebron Glass Uniqe to other glass is its location, and to my understanding such things not satisfy as a uniq invention.

for example Ancient_Chinese_glass isn't a part of Chinese_inventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_glass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_inventions

regarding to my 2nd claim, that even if it was an invention, say this is Palestinian invention not matching the critia of the category.

This category is about inventions that were invented in the State of Palestine and/or by Palestinian people.

the state of Palestine Founded on 15 November 1988, while Hebron glass main flourish was from the Roman rule in Palestine. the roman rule was until 4th centuary, so about 15 centuries before there was a Palestine state was hebron glass, thus its was not invented in the state of Palestine.

regarding the other option to fit in the category is if it were being invented by Palestinian people, altho in the article its written: "its origin goes back to the older Phoenician glass industry", and that make it Phoenician invention and not a Palestinian invention.

Palestinian only started to form around the 17th century, how can it be invented by Palestinian nationality before the idea of Palestinian nationality even existed?

"The timing and causes behind the emergence of a distinctively Palestinian national consciousness among the Arabs of Palestine are matters of scholarly disagreement. Some argue that it can be traced as far back as the peasants' revolt in Palestine in 1834 (or even as early as the 17th century), while others argue that it did not emerge until after the Mandatory Palestine period."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians 79.181.78.173 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestine (region) has been the name of the region far before the 17th century. The article says "The glass industry in Hebron was established during Roman rule in Palestine". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Trying to say Palestine didn't exist back then is a flawed argument. The region has been known by that name, or some derivative thereof, since at least 1200 BC. In the Hebrew Bible it was called Philistine. Palestine was more of a Latin derivative. The history of the area is rather fascinating. It all started with two brothers, forced apart as children, and their ancestors have been fighting over it ever since. Hebron itself has been a city since around 1700 BC, and it's even referenced in the Hebrew Bible, but it has been under Babylonian, Persian, Hittite, and other rule in the past. Whether the name itself is Hebrew or Arabic is a matter of debate, because it could have come from either.

Then again, I also can agree that it doesn't really qualify as an invention. The article doesn't describe it as one. Hebron was sort of like Venice, Italy, in that it was known as a center of glass production, but I highly doubt they can claim inventing it. Now, an invention can be some kind of innovation to an existing product. For example, the car got its start from the chariots invented by the Egyptians or the Hittites. Adding a steam engine was another improvement which qualifies as an invention, and adding a gasoline engine was yet another invention. This article doesn't really describe any such innovations.

However, I don't know that this is really the place to discuss it, or if it should be at the category's talk page, or even at WP:Categories for discussion. Categories like this are usually added by people after the fact and often have nothing to do with the people who wrote and edited the article. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Trying to say Palestine didn't exist back then is a flawed argument."

nobody is arguing about the name of the region, its a known fact the region was named to palestine after the roman toke over.

(side hostory, the only conection betwen Palestines and Phlistin is the name.

my argument is that its imposible to claim that a group of peopole (palestinian) that decented from another group of pepole cant be the same as peple who they are descending from.

as defined in the articale regarding palestinin wich are "an ethnonational group descending from peoples who have inhabited the region of Palestine".

and given the context that "An ethnonational group or ethno-national group is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and *national identity* (or political identity), that asserts historic claims to a territorial homeland."

you cant be the pepole who decending from and the pepole who they decented from at the same time, it is simply not posible.

since we know Palestinian nationality only started to form around the 17th century and national identity is esential to the definition of an ethnic group the claim that invention

regarding the Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people#Ethnicity_and_race

regarding the right place to talk about it, i dont know either, but i saw FunkMonk reverting the last person who changed it so i thougt open a conversation whould be the first step to get concensuce regarding thie topic 79.181.161.233 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Are you using google or AI to translate? Because, no offense intended, but this is very hard to parse through, so it's understandable that I may be misinterpreting your argument, just as you may be misinterpreting mine. For example, your sentence above: "you cant be the pepole who decending from and the pepole who they decented from at the same time, it is simply not posible." I have no clue what you are trying to say. It comes off like gibberish (again, no offense intended, but I seriously do not understand it).

Keeping that in mind, I think it's important to clarify what "nationalism" and "ethnonationalism" means. This has been debated for over a hundred years. No two sociologists give the same definition, but the general view is that its a conflation of the nation with the state, (that is, the state defines the nation and the nation exists solely to support the state). Like communism or capitalism, nationalism was a form of political ideology that began in the late 1600s, and reached its peak with the German Nationalist Movement in the 1940s. The Nazis were an ethnonationalist government.

A "nation", on the other hand, is: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It really has nothing to do with politics or the state. The US is a nation simply because we all inhabit the same territory, even though our languages, cultures, histories, and descent are all different. Within both the US and Canada are other nations united by such things, such as First Nation tribes. None of this really has anything to do with the state, meaning the government. Those are separate entities.

At any rate, I don't know what any of that has to do with whatever point you're trying to make, so it seems like it's just a distraction from the point of yours that I do agree with. Which is: it's not really an invention. I think on that point alone there is a good argument for removing the category, so the rest of it is really moot. In other words, I am agreeing with you that the category should be removed. Isn't that enough? Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)