Talk:Tel Rumeida

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


Ownership claims[edit]

The detailed claims about ownership history are entirely inappropriate for an article on an archaeological site. They are also unsourced:

The only thing remaining, which is the real source of these insertions is this "book" by the settler fanatic Noam Arnon. Looking at it for 2 minutes is enough to see that we cannot possible trust it as a source of fact. Here is Arnon telling us what a wonderful guy Baruch Goldstein was (and lots more like that is easy to find). It's like using the Hamas constitution as a source for Jews. Wikipedia is not a place where land claims and extremist politics can be fought over, take it somewhere else. Zerotalk 12:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leased then later owned[edit]

This Hebrew non-RS claims the land was later became private. It mentions David Avishar. Looking for RS. Settleman (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are complex technical questions, of law. They need very solid multiple sourcing. Anything from a Hebronite settler organ or source is unlikely to be acceptable. Title is proved in courts of law, and right to land also, as the Haikal family suit in Israel's courts shows. And please desist from meaningless tagging of multiple sources. Specify on the talk page what your beef is. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with the court decision. And land leases in Israel are anything but simple :( Settleman (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-RS is non-RS[edit]

Nishidani, I would like you to elaborate on this edit. Those activist source fail RS for current facts not to mention historical facts! Settleman (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'activist'? The sources you contest are from Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel and Christian Peacemaker Teams, organizations that, exactly like B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, monitor closely countries where conflict is chronic. Monitoring, with field reports from people who are placed to observe, assist people in danger, or interview others when conflict occurs, can't be dismissed as 'activism'. These religious groups are particularly nitpickety about adopting language that provokes either side politically. Their reports are factual accounts, not exercises in persuasion and polemics. If you are familiar with the actual documents produced, they are in tone utterly different from known activist organs. In short, sourcing cannot be restricted to the usual 5 or 6 newspapers in Israel, or otherwise, academic books, for encyclopedic articles in the I/P area. If you think those sources, which I don't think have ever been challenged at RS/N, are unreliable, there is a board to query my judgement, where I will be quite happy to discuss this. Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if in a very lenienent universe those will be considered RS for current events (we are not in such universe), they are most defiantly not RS for historical facts. Settleman (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've made many errors in policy calls in your brief career here. An assertion is not proof of anything. Take it to RS/N, and notify me when you do.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There is no consensus for adding historical facts on such source. You can take it to RSN if you want it added. Settleman (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, study policy and practice. You, one person, disagree, with another editor, one person. Consensus is a process developed by requesting wider community input and securing a general agreement among a majority of editors. It is not a flag waved at someone you alone disagree with regarding an edit or two.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RSN it. Settleman (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, rather than asking for outside input, or discussing why you think those sources are not RS on this talk page, you simply waited 24 hours to revert the stuff you dislike, which has been collected by field workers directly engaged in monitoring Tel Rumeida. This is edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I maintain those sources are not RS for historical facts and dumping more sources of the same sort doesn't help your case but seems like a tactic a bully would use. Stop wasting time and take it to RSN. Settleman (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's your job as much as mine, and you have done nothing on the page except revert and post tags. I'll just revert you, until you can come up with an argument and not lazy assertions.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest or take it to RSN. Settleman (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me not fail to reciprocate your hospitality. You take it to RSN.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need. You fail to explain how an activist blog is RS for historical facts. WP:IREALLYLIKEIT isn't a policy (or much else) last time I checked. Settleman (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't request citations needed[edit]

when they are in the given sources, as at:

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin authorized archaeological digs on Jewish lots, reportedly to preempt the expansion of settlements there[citation needed].

Such requests are in bad faith, since the editor in question has not taken the trouble to verify sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic[edit]

Should not the name also be given in Arabic? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Perhaps Al Ameer can do it? There are multivoklume histories of Hebron in Arabic, but as usual, no editor here, let alone scholars, read them or construe their contents. The story of the mosque in particular.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's Jabla al Rahama, which looks like a dialect form of 'hill of mercy'. Can anyone check this out? Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by tagging[edit]

Settleman, your only activity here seems to add a daily quota of tags, without any explanation or prior discussion. This is drive-by tagging, pointless, like street graffiti making a 'statement'. I've removed them. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to discuss why you bloating this article with anti-settler material from any source is not NPoV or UNDUE? I don't think so. Settleman (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to discuss this, then make your points. There is no bloating with 'anti-settler' material. There is deployment of what RS say about that place and its various communities. As you keep repeating elsewhere citing Moshe Ya'alon, not all settlers are the same, the 'great majority' do not behave as those at Tel Rumeida do, and numerous mainstream newspapers, observers, scholars note what is done there.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is - you make this article into a WP:COATRACK of any incident or quote you can lay your keyboard on. Is there violence - no doubt (from both sides which is hardly mentioned), did you over did yourself. You bet. This isn't the Free Palestine Encyclopedia. Familirize yourself with WP:WEIGHT, please. Settleman (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Putting material about Federman's brother?? - dude, there is not enough AGF in the world to pretend it was an honest mistake mistake or somehow justified. Settleman (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confused. 'Coatrack' refers to 'a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects.'
The nominal subject is Tel Rumeida which is a Palestinian neighbourhood, a Jewish settlement and an archaeological site. All 3 are dealt with in detail. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specific events you describe in length are UNDUE and so is the quote to hang for dry. I'm sure you see yourself in one line with Shulman fighting with your keyboard but dumping as much smear as you found. You couldn't care less about DUE or NPoV. Settleman (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Putting material about Federman's brother??'. You are so completely confused by this obsessive following me about that you are now confusing my edits to this page with an edit I made on the Noam Federman page, an edit you partially erased because you were in such an apparent hurry that you didn't note the bit about his brother there was added n7 years ago, not by me. And now you are saying I added that stuff here. You need to rest and drop your obsessions with me.
I seriously think I will ignore you from now on. You are failing consistently to make reasoned arguments on point, and instead wave vague policy flags or make assertions as above that lack any material basis. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I can't remember when you answered a question directly. All you do is to point finger at others. Well, that is a well known Palestinian technique so why not use it on Wikipedia. Back to your edit, maybe no-one deleted it, that isn't an accuse to not delete it yourself. Instead you expanded on it. Do you really think it belong? Settleman (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well your memory is frail. I asked you to list concrete examples of what you find problematical and you have personalized this and engaged in finger-wagging. As I said, unless you can indicate concretely things you object to, all this bluster is just that, and not worth taking notice of. Good night and goodbyeNishidani (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't one sentense but the load. You can choose what stays in but right now the article is overwhelmed my your additions. You like you used Susya as a dumpsite for years with no construction (It is still a mess there but any one point is source and arguing with you about DUE or UNDUE is a suicide mission when much clearcut cases are like crossing the red-sea). Settleman (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I can be assured that POV sniping will not be a problem, I will comprehensively rewrite both articles to ensure that they flow encyclopedically with thematic coherence and no reduplications. As for the rest, as stated, if you cannot make specific suggestions, whingeing is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: I have no idea about this topic (nor do I care), but I will make two points. Firstly, when one adds a POV tag, as you did here, one is required to open a discussion on the talk page (or point to an ongoing one). Otherwise, anyone can remove the tag. This is for good reason: I have seen tags which have stayed on for literally years without anyone bothering to fix it. Secondly, I have been seeing all the signs of a slow-boiling situation in the past few days and weeks. If you believe that Nishidani edits inappropriately, use appropriate forums for user conduct. If you don't find people willing to support your position, it is best to drop the WP:STICK, and get along. It takes all sorts to make a world. Otherwise this isn't going to end well. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: Thank you for your kind advice. From what I saw, the noticeboards are rigged once a group of editors work together to 'protect' one of their own. You yourself participated in it by comparing my lack of edits to N wild editing. But I guess there is nothing I can do but see how one editor is using WP to promote certain agenda, beliefs and propaganda. Settleman (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nth WP:AGF violation, and affirmation of a conspiracy by editors who disagree with you.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Daniel Borg?[edit]

"Daniel Borg" is a random NOBODY. No notability, no expertise, NO NOTHING. I'd put my money on him being a plant, as I don't think anyone can be that naive. Bloody ridiculous to add him here and, Settleman, you put him in twice. Zerotalk 08:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he isn't very notable but an RS wrote about him in regards of Rumeida. Is it worse than books from small publisher? Who are Kathleen Kern, Michael McRay or the other activists quoted in other sources. How come any person who says the settlers are violent is RS (w/o even trying to clarify it is a minority) but those who say it isn't the case are not notable? If you want to remove his name, go ahead, but other than that, what is the problem? Settleman (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kathleen Kern had 7 years of overseeing the CPT in Hebron, until the Israeli government barred her, until her husband, an Israeli, gave her the status to return in 2007. She has published two works on the history of CPT teams, and on the specific experience in Israel, in respectable academic presses, Wipf and Stock and The Lutterworth Press. ;McRay spent 3 months on the streets in Hebron as part of a CPT group, and his diary account of what he saw is reliabnly published.
It is not acceptable to assert that we are accepting any source that is critical of the Tel Rumeida community, while keeping out those who positively defend it. Daniel Borg is a Swedish blogger whose only claim to fame is this comment, based on his surprise, while briefly in Hebron, at finding that Tsahal soldiers on duty there were nice guys.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'McRay spent 3 months on the streets in Hebron as part of a CPT group, and his diary account of what he saw is reliably published.

'. In other words, he is an activist with a few months of on-the-street personal anecdotes, that were published - exactly like DG. This double standard is nauseating. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is an activist? Someone who observes what others dislike? One of the sources no one questions here is by Edward Platt. He sympathizes with the Palestinian narrative. Define him then as an 'activist' and dismiss the book?Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who works in an NGO that "believes the Israeli occupation is "violent", and that reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis can only flourish when the occupation end" is an activist. You may find their activism laudable, but it remains activism. More importantly, he is the exact equivalent of an ISM activist. If you are ok with keeping one in the article, you have no case against the inclusion of the other. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli occupation is violent. That is a neutral fact admitted by all sides. Having an opinion, even the caricature of one you sketch, in any case does not amount to 'activism'. Llosa has expressed an 'opinion' precisely like the one you invented, and therefore he is an 'activist'? All settlers by the same token would be 'activists', were it not for the fact that the word is jargon in this narrative frame for anyone who subscribes to universal human rights. Your argument leaks from every pore.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try to exercise basic reading comprehension skills: LLosa is not volunteering with an activist NGO, therefore, he is not an activist and not comparable to McRay or Berg/Borg. McRay, OTOH, is/was a volunteer with CPT, just like Berg was a volunteer with ISM - both activist organizations with similar agendas and similar tactics. You just don't like what Borg has to say. Tough luck for you. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Funny to see an atheist calling a minor religious publication "academic".
And nobody else sees the UNDUE issue here? Or does it not exist when used for justified political, humanitarian causes?
Daniel Borg's story is published on an RS so beyond not liking it, what policy is the exclusion based on? Settleman (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What put it into your head that I am an atheist? The publishing houses produce, in this field, a lot of quality work, and if you read the wiki entries, you will see that they easily pass wiki tests for quality publications. Wipf and Stock certainly print a lot of academic level works. If you cannot see the difference between a Nobel prize writer, and a virtually anonymous Swedish blogger, then it's pointless arguing. I am not opposed actually to Borg: citing that sort of nonsense after Llosa, to 99% of readers' eyes, makes his comment look extremely stupid, which therefore would assist a Palestinian POV. I bow to Zero's judgement here, as almost always.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, stop confusing the specifics of this page with the general question of 'settlers'.('How come any person who says the settlers are violent is RS?'). It is known, though courts of law, general Israeli opinion, the Shabak, and abroad that many in that community act violently. That doesn't mean the reputation of, say, rabbi Menachem Froman is tainted by association.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FFF, please read WP:WEIGHT, a part of WP:NPOV. Giving a random college kids unsubstantiated view on this topic any weight is undue weight. nableezy - 20:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this 'random college kid' any different from McRay? This 'college kid' was given coverage by reliable sources, that's all that's needed to include him here, not to mention that it is REQUIRED, per NPOV. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don´t anyone mention the obvious? Namely that anyone can join ISM, there is no selection process. You take part in a few days course, and then you are in. You also pay your own expenses. Oh, and organisations alike "stop ISM" have several times infiltrated ISM. (I recall the guy behind "stop ISM" was also on Wikipedia, back in the day, before he got banned). Contrast that with CPT or EAPPI, where all participants are interviewed and scrutinised before they are sent anywhere, (and they have their expenses paid,++). Simply: you cannot compare them, Huldra (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the payment of your expenses a criteria for evaluating a source's reliability or notability? Are you going to go around removing all statements sourced to ISM from Wikipedia now, or are you content to display your hypocrisy on this article alone? Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other NoCal socks can handle that. nableezy - 22:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are in an inflammatory attack mode, slinging accusations of 'hypocrisy'.:::The two organizations also have stiff training protocols, imposing a pacific non-activist non confrontational attitude on anyone who is accepted. The college kid has a blog, and was interviewed for what he wrote there about his, was it, 3 weeks in Israel. McRay wrote a book about his experiences there over 3 months, just in Hebron.I should add that this page has some protocols for citation, which in this case = Ariel Kahana, 'The Young Swede Who Changed from Pro-Palestinian to Israel Supporter,' nrg.org 1 September 2015Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I´m just saying that anyone (who can afford it) can join ISM, and several have done so with the explicit goal of discrediting ISM. "Stop ISM" had training camps for "undercover" recruits to ISM. This has been known for over 10 years, Huldra (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't take a side on this as yet. But I will note that no one knows who this college kid is, other than being a student cited for his blog views. Michael McRay is a CPI worker, chaplain who also obtained a Master of Philosophy in Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation Studies with Trinity College Dublin, Belfast. His book is na fieldwork diary published reliably by Wipf and Stock. You are comparing the view of an undergraduate blogger with a person with a curriculum of experience and study in the area, reliably published.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened here, a double edit? This (garbled English) remains in the settler section though a majority was for its removal as a quote under Llosa.

A Swedish volunteer, Daniel Borg, who used to described himself as pro-Palestinian said that before attending Tel Romeida barrier he was instructed by Fatah and B’Tzelem that the IDF soldiers were violent, stoned Palestinians and helped settlers violence. On his first day at Tel-Rumeida, he saw an IDF soldier and a Palestinian child joking around and in the three weeks of his stay, he saw no violence. Berg describes Fatah members pressuring volunteers to act as human shield for Palestinian violent acts or encouraging them to risk their life as their death will get int'l coverage.'

Quote or paraphrase, it is still being discussed and should not go in until some consensus is arrived at.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. FFF actually inserted it a second time (!) in the article, Nableezy then removed it ...but I guess he didn´t notice it was already in the article....-Huldra (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it with then longquote tag was a mistake of mine. The rest of this conversation is the usual non-policy twisting that one should get used to. Settleman (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, User:Firkin Flying Fox, get consensus on the talk-page before you try to re-add this, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and get above the 500 edit limit, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra![edit]

Pringle cites SWP 1874 and A.E Mader 1911-1914 for earlier surveys of Tel Rumeida. Does that bing a rell?Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Conder and Kitchener, 1883, SWP III, pp. 327-328
  • Conder, Claude Reignier; Kitchener, Herbert H. (1883). The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. Vol. 3. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.



A very interesting source, though, is:

Thanks, Mr Huldra.Oops. Thanks, dear. I was just debressing! Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol...anyway I assume this was not what you wanted: ...the name of the book is now 782 "Historica theologica et moralis Terrae Sanctae",? However, I cannot remove "782", as I would break 1RR if I did... Huldra (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I should note that Quaresmius goes on to discard the notion that Jesse was buried at Tel Rumeida, and gives extensive textual reasons for his skepticism. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buy the whey (sorry this evening but I have been rereading some passages from Finnegans Wake), I checked out Andreas Evaristus Mader, Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Südjudäa: Archäologische und topographische Untersuchungen, F. Schöningh, 1918, on from pages 144.154 it definitely has considerable detail on the Dair al-Arba'in, which I can only see in snippets. If over the next few years someone can procure a Photostat of these pages, I'll harvest them for details and translate them.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and about the Latin text...I´ll take your word about it.
Btw, there seems to -historically- have been quite some confusion between this place, and Mamre, Oak of Mamre and even Abraham's Oak Holy Trinity Monastery. Pringle bring sources relating both to Mamre, and to this place. Hmm, the Mamre -article should probably be expanded (lots of SWP stuff) Huldra (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that problem several years ago when User:AshleyKennedy and I worked the Mamre article briefly. Deep source confusion. There is a very good German monograph on it somewhere, but I can't remember it for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I´ll try to update that article: lots more page-links available these days, than back in 2008, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RS required[edit]

The Jewish community claim that it was granted perpetual rights to the site in the mid to late 1800s,[citation needed] A kushan, or Ottoman land deed is said to have been issued to the Magen Avot Jewish community organization in 1882.[citation needed]

As far as my memory recalls, this is a distortion. In any case, one cannot write that perpetual rights were granted sometime between 1850s and 1880s (granted perpetual rights to the site in the mid to late ). If someone has RS to clarify this, and make the claim clear, then we can add them here, and reintroduce this back into the text. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gas the Arabs" - no source to link to settlers' work.[edit]

In the photo contributed by Magne Hagesæter, in the section of "Israeli Settlement" - the caption reads:

""Gas the Arabs" painted on the gate outside a Palestinian home in Hebron by Israeli settlers"

Unfortunately there is no source or claim to denote the "by Israeli settlers" part and I request this be adjusted accordingly. Even though it is likely and probable, with no source it is not proper to state who did this. Perhaps amend by saying that it is signed by the JDL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadamiaman (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to the Price tag policy should be added to the caption as well. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2019[edit]

Please change the last two sentences in the The Bakri Family Home section to:

The company appealed claims rights from Ottoman law and compensation, but in 2019 all settler claims were rejected, while the Palestinian owners rights to be paid for the period in which the settlers used the house were recognized. <ref>Yotam Berger, [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-court-orders-settlers-evacuated-from-hebron-home-purchased-in-fraud-1.7144212 'Court Orders Settlers Evicted From Palestinian Home Purchased With Forged Documents,'] [[Haaretz]] 22 April 2019.</ref> The Jerusalem District court rejected an appeal by the construction company.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.kan.org.il/Item/?itemId=63920|title=אחרי 15 שנה: ביהמ"ש הורה למתנחלים לפנות את תל רומיידה בחברון|work=Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation|date=23 December 2019|access-date=23 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223143441/https://www.kan.org.il/Item/?itemId=63920|archive-date=23 December 2019|language=Hebrew}}</ref>

Reasons: Remove word duplication in the first sentence and update the information regarding the appeal in the second sentence. Haage42 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with an additional English-language source from The Times of Israel. --Nemoschool (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing rewrite[edit]

The following points have been adjusted

  • The lead noted it is an agricultural and residential area, with a tel within its boundaries. The editor changed this to define it as a tel (which is the justification behind Israeli settler claims) and made the historic fact it has been residential land owned by Palestinians as contingent.
  • The topographical description began by pre-modern descriptions. The POV pushing editor redefined the topography in terms of very historically recent Hebron Accords, making an historic zone into a political geography.
  • During the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. This is illiterate. Excavations and anything else do not take place ‘during’ an annexation. An annexation is a state of affairs not a period semantically. As well as a bad precedent. It would mean everywhere where Israel digs in the West Bank we would have mirror phrasing, everything occurring during the ‘Israeli occupation of the West Bank’. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2)

(Edited introduction: before anything else, most sources describe Tel Rumeida as an archeological site; moreover, not only Jewish scholars identify the site with biblical Hebron - but also German and Arab researchers)

I've provided even a hundred sources to prove common usage when requested. So if you make a generalization of the kind abvove 'most sources descrivbe Tel Rumeida as an archaeologial site', it means you have a mastery of most sources (no evidence for this) and can substantiate the assertion. Do so.
It is not contested that it is an archaeological site. Functionally in history it was an area employed for agriculture with ruins on it. The fact of the tel will be obviously what archaeologists and historians focus on, but that does not mean the fact it has long had agriultural use and has been settled by Palestinians must disappear from the definition, which, as you frame it, is what interests settlers, and historians.

(3)

Tel Rumeida is thought to constitute the ancient settlement of Hebron, also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, during the Bronze Age and Iron Age.

This was reduplicated in the lead and the sentence is crap, in implying that the Hebrew Hebron existed during the Bronze Age, when it was a Canaanite city. Nishidani (talk) the 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4)My doumenting that the word for several Jewish families niche is 'enclave' not an Israeli settlement has, again by Tombah's editwarring without use of the talk page, been removed. The default term for it is enclave and it does not fit the pattern of Israeli settlements but a hilltop youth type of illegal outpost. (5) The distinction between Canaanite and Israelite is again blurred in the same revert. Even among standard Hebron histories by people like Auerbach, there is no talk of Tel Hebron for the ancient period - it is recent to Israeli Zionist scholarship as part of the Hebraicization of Arab placenames - but the standard term is Tel Rumeida. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_Rumeida&oldid=1209030141"