Talk:Hebron

Pilgrims

"The armistice agreement between Israel with Jordan intended to allow Israeli Jewish pilgrims to visit Hebron, but, as Israel did not reciprocate in kind, this did not occur." [161]

The source is a book by Sarah Irving, who is involved with the "Electronic Intifada" and therefore possibly a biased source. Is there any other source for this information?

In any case, even if true, the perspective is a bit skewed. During the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, not only were Israelis barred from entry, but all Jews, regardless of citizenship. Given that fact, the idea that barring Israeli Jewish pilgrims to Hebron had anything to do with reciprocity seems far-fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.48.88 (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. I don't think that an association with the Electronic Intifada translates into a badge of unreliability automatically. One looks at the quality of the source and its publisher first. One might note that the Armistice allowed (technically) Jewish visits to the Western Wall, but in practice this never occurred. It is never mentioned that Jordan banned all visits by Muslims in Israel to East Jerusalem as well, so that ban in practice was not resttricted to Jew, but to all those on the other side of the line, pious Muslims as well. These issues are very complex: throughout that period, any Palestinian of 700,000 trying to get back 'home' was branded as an 'infilitrator' and could be shot on sight within Israel (compare the standard Zionist narrative of the wretched fate of Jews attempting to dodge the British Mandatory authorities to reach Palestine. The latter is narrated with bitterness (understandably so), the former, which is identical in its motivations, is dismissed by as fine an historian as Benny Morris with a broadbush confusion of desperate nostalgia for one's roots and homeland and house as 'infiltration' and the borderlines between 'nostalgia' and 'terrorism' blurred. The endless border incidents certainly affected the application of policies and promises given in 1949. But your point specifically on Hebron merits attention, and we'll have to look further into it.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is an anti-Semitic Holocaust denial site that promotes terrorism. Anyone associated with that site is a racist and thus not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.31.26 (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is filled with anti-Semitic sources and needs a big purging by a professional editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.29 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes in phrasing of the lead

@ZinedineZidane: The phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. The "West Bank" is a proper name here, and refers to the west bank of Jordan River, roughly speaking. West Bank is not a province in the country "Palestine". Therefore, the earlier phrasing was better. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's besides the point. If you look up any city in the world, it will say, for instance, "London is the capital and most populous city of England and the United Kingdom" or "Paris the capital and most-populous city of France". Not "London is an English/British city" or "Paris is a French city". Saying "Hebron is a Palestinian city" seems WP:POINTy. cf. "Derry". You wouldn't start the article with "Derry is an Irish city" or "Derry is a British city". It is: "Derry is the second-largest city in Northern Ireland". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, perhaps you will agree that the phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. Simply "West Bank" by itself makes more sense. Secondly, your comparison to other cities are not correct here because London and Paris are not occupied, like the West Bank is. Hence the need for "Palestinian". Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, so you will admit there is a political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made here? Otherwise, how would Hebron and Bethlehem's occupation change how you describe them in the opening sentence of an encyclopedia? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://global.britannica.com/place/Bethlehem http://global.britannica.com/place/Hebron-city-West-Bank ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, can we agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense? Even the Britannica source simply says "West Bank". Secondly, there is indeed a political point being made. Perhaps editors feel that it is an important point to be made (it is of course accurate). This kind of stuff is a matter of judgement, there is no right and wrong here. If you feel that it is important to not write "Palestinian" in the lead, try to find consensus, using RfC or some other method, instead of this ineffectual edit-warring. You seem to be a new user, I would like to direct you to the essay WP:BRD. If you make a bold revert, and it gets reverted, do not simply keep making the revert, but discuss (on the article talk pages, not user talk pages, where others can't see them). Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Three users so far, and none have been able to provide a reason, a source, or a Wikipedia policy which lends credence to the idea that these two cities should have an opening sentence at variance with every other entry on every other city in the world. I am not really new to Wikipedia, but every time I attempt to make a clear, common sense edit which is supported by irreproachable sources, Wiki "veterans" who seem to feel like they own the article I'm editing - immediately revert, with no other justification than their own personal, rather queer reasoning. Why is the opinion of yourself, Nishdiani and Hertz1888 privileged over Encyclopedia Britannica? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for treating these cities differently is that they are different. In the West Bank there is a very strong divide between places that are Palestinian and places that are Israeli settlements. This distinction is perhaps the single fact about them most commonly mentioned by sources, so putting it in the lead is good writing that conforms to policy. The decisions made by other encyclopedias are not our concern. Zero^talk 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thankyou for admitting that this is a case of (1) politicized exceptionalism and (2) placing your own personal opinion above the sources ("other encyclopedias" is quite hilarious btw, you actually believe that as a random, anonymous internet screen-name you have equal or greater authority than the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica). Congrats. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing I have the right to prefer the opinions of multiple reliable secondary sources over the text of one encyclopedia. Zero^talk 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You haven't provided a source here that stays that the customary expression ("X is a city in X") is somehow incorrect in this two exceptional cases. It's just your personal opinion. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We edit consensually, not by unilateral fiat. And we strive to get multiple sources for controversial points. Anyone can make a nonsense of an encyclopedia by a selective use of one source, which might look good, but is either wrong, or badly written etc. Here the consensus is, among 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestinian' editors of experience that one edits on this issue as Hertzl indicated. It is pointless to insist further, unless reality changes, or sources improve. To further revert would be disruptive'Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@ZinedineZidane98: Firstly, since you have not responded to my question thrice, I am just going to assume that you agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. I will assume henceforth, that you simply mean "West Bank", and your position is to remove "Palestinian" from the sentence. In regard to this, I noted that the label is accurate. The decision on whether to use an accurate label in the lead or not is decided by consensus of editors on Wikipedia (which you inaccurately dismiss as "personal opinions"). There is no wikipedia policy which states that we have to follow Britannica text, though of course people can make arguments, convincing or otherwise, based on such things. This is my final comment on the matter. I hope there will be no more edit-warring over this, and you will use proper WP:DR methods if you wish to pursue this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in short: "screw convention, screw the sources, screw other encyclopedia, screw every other article on Wikipedia, we like it this way, because it makes a political/ethnic/nationalistic point we approve of". And "we" are a few online activists, who seem to devote a large part of their life to editing Wikipedia on all matters to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and exclusively in advocacy of one side of that conflict. Seems legit. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you had written a sentence that actually made sense you might have cause for all this babbling. But you didnt. And you didnt because you apparently are under the impression that writing involves filling in the blanks in some template. Now that may have made sense in elementary school but the world you live in is slightly more complicated than a fill in the blank template allows for. But apparently the fact that your favored sentence was nonsensical is "besides the point", because the only point that matters here is everybody else is an online activist and a random, anonymous internet screen-name. Remind me again, what are you? All this babbling because you think everybody but you has some slant they are editing with. And what exactly do you think the political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made is? That its a Palestinian city in Israeli-occupied territory? That there is a difference between Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements in the West Bank? That there is some need to distinguish between the two? nableezy - 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. "Babbling" you say? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware you had one, sorry. And yes, babbling. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have a point, I still don't know what it is. Incidentally here a few examples of places identified as Jewish in the first sentence: Harasha, Shim'a, Naaran, Kfar Bar'am, Or HaGanuz. There are lots of others. The ethnic nature of a place is reasonable in the lead whenever it isn't obvious from the context. We don't write "English city in England" because that would be silly. We do, however, write that Lamponeia, Neandreia, Artemita, Pydna etc were Greek cities in their first sentences because that is key information about them. You should stop this now. Zero^talk 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's very telling that the best you can do is try to equate equate Ancient Greek archaeological sites and Israeli settlements/outposts with actual extant cities, like Hebron and Bethlehem. If "accuracy" was your concern (which it isn't, when you read the first line of any encyclopedia on any city they don't immediately discuss ethnicity) surely you've mention Area C, PA sovereignty etc. But you don't, because that would look ludicrous in the first line... as does categorizing a city's ethnicity/nationality. But, you obviously have a point to push, and you're all very good at it. I'm not "doing" anything - merely pointing out an anomaly, for the record. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The only point I see being pushed here by everyone but you is that WP is edited collaboratively, through consensus. It is time to stop pointing fingers. I suggest you read WP:AGF, and especially WP:FOC. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

^^^. I think we can stop responding now. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A synthetic source on the military situation worthy of consideration

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

this is not a valid source. Stop usig this as a place for propaganda 96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic statements in the paper

Too much of this article depends on unreviewed and known bias sources. This is inevitable with the topic and finding balanced reports are ineed thin. But the line needs to be drawn with the repetition of classic racist anti-semetism being repeated as broad fact.

That is written 'anti-semitic'. That community is notorious even in Israel for the extremity of its extremely peculiar settler culture, and all this is very well documented. It even has its defendents such as Jerold Auerbach and Michael Feige, but they sweetly glide over that strain of madness. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your wrong. The "source" is not even legitimate and shouldn't be a citable source. The settlers IN HEBRON are a wide variety from Chabad, to securalists. I know you would like to paint Chabad as a Meshianic "Cult" but that exact racist rhetoric has been used against Jews for CENTURIES. Every Jew that puts on Tfillin is a Meshianic extremist by the standards applied by the artical and EVERY Jew says, I remember Jerusalem at the passover sedar. The statement that all the settlers after 1967 are founded with the ideological commandment to break the law and kill, if necessary and bring meshianic race war is a LIE.... PERIOD and doesn't belong repeated in this article.

I hate the racists, and race baiters allowed to run free on wikipedia.

And how about the Chabad Sysnaguages and follwers who have been there since the Rebbe lived in Hebron in the 1830's, these are also part of the post 1967 "madmen" or ar you in fact just a racist spreading your specific brand of hatred and anti-Jewish propaganda whenever you can all over the internet. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of fixing this blatant antisemetic snear, the page as been locked from editing. The editor is a racist and should be locked out and th paragraph removed. In fact, under German Law, and other nations, this paragraph is in violation and anti-semeitsm statutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore this IP address qualifies with over 500 edits BY FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

By any rational standard this is a classic form of anti-Semitism ....

The use of Messianic Jewish theology as evidence of Jews being an internal threat is a classic anti-Semitic tactic used for nearly 1000 years and it should not be tolerated on wikipeda

removing this section is vandalism and supports racism by suppressing this complaint.

This paragraph is a bigoted statement and should not be in wikipedea ~~It is a classic tactic by antisemetic propaganda to use the belief in the Mesheach or the Messiah as a reason for politic repression. The false charge is being levied here, and is very problematic. Does that author who wrote that paragraph aware of the historical context of his charges? The paragraph needs to be pulled for be factually wrong and for being a form of anti-semetism 24.38.3.28 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Post-1967 settlement was impelled by theological doctrines developed in the Mercaz HaRav Kook under both its founder Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, according to which the Land of Israel is holy, the people, endowed with a divine spark, are holy, and that the messianic Age of Redemption has arrived, requiring that the Land and People be united in occupying the land and fulfilling the commandments. Hebron has a particular role in the unfolding 'cosmic drama': traditions hold that Abraham purchased land there, that King David was its king, and the tomb of Abraham covers the entrance to the Garden of Eden, and is a site excavated by Adam, who, with Eve, is buried there. Redemption will occur when the feminine and masculine characteristics of God are united at the site. Settling Hebron is not only a right and duty, but is doing the world at large a favour, with the community's acts an example of the Jews of Hebron being "a light unto the nations" (Or la-Goyim) [210] and bringing about their redemption, even if this means breaching secular laws, expressed in religiously motivated violence towards Palestinians, who are widely viewed as "mendacious, vicious, self-centered, and impossible to trust". Clashes with Palestinians in the settlement project have theological significance in the Jewish Hebron community: the frictions of war were, in Kook's view, conducive to the messianic process, and 'Arabs' will have to leave. There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.29 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from being wrong on the facts, it follows the classical formula of the Protocols of Zion.

When you a palestinian radical, why let a good snide prevent you from being a bigot. Obviously all followers of Rav kook are Mechianic crazys and none of the people who survived the purge of Jews would want any return to the graves of Abraham and Sarah, or the Cemetary or Avraham Avinu synaguage. It says so in this "dependable" source and all the arabs and radical communists here are in consenus... 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)96.57.23.82 (talk)

the stupid article even talks against itself. It says here:

There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] - which is obviously wrong and bias when there are chabbadnicks there directly related to previous Jewish families that lived there... and then it more accurately says here:

Survivors and descendants of the prior community are mixed. Some support the project of Jewish redevelopment, others commend living in peace with Hebronite Arabs, while a third group recommend a full pullout.[181] Descendants supporting the latter views have met with Palestinian leaders in Hebron.[182] In 1997 one group of descendants dissociated themselves from the settlers by calling them an obstacle to peace.[182] On May 15, 2006, a member of a group who is a direct descendant of the 1929 refugees[183] urged the government to continue its support of Jewish settlement, and allow the return of eight families evacuated the previous January from homes they set up in emptied shops near the Avraham Avinu neighborhood.[181] Beit HaShalom, established in 2007 under disputed circumstances, was under court orders permitting its forced evacuation.[184][185][186][187] All the Jewish settlers were expelled on December 3, 2008.[188]

So why allow thew continuing bigotry in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I'm willing to bet most Jews in the world know nothing of the peculiar intricacies of hermeneutic theology prevalent in a number of Hebron's yeshivot. The article is a scholarly description of what is taught there, and we document this.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No the source is not scholarly and the source a diatribe against Jews. As a fact, their at 70 families in Hebron, quite a few of them mainstream, Chabadnick school. The source is invalid, as anyone can tell just by the tone of the posted paragraph that makes a classical case for repression of jews based on the core of their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, while we are on the topic, the Hebron Yeshiva is the same Yeshiva that the Arabs tried to kill everyone in 1929. It is not only Mainstream Judaism, but it has been a cornerstone for the Rosh Yeshiva across the World including Rabbi Kotler and Rabbi Hunter of the Beth Medrash Govoha and Chaim Berlin Yeshiva - two of the largest in the world. The education in Hebron is parallel to the Jewish education anywhere else in the world, and is a full participant in the 3000 year old Talmudic tradition. To assert that the Yeshiva is a threat to Arab populations, which is what is being said in this paragraph, and which is in conflict with the rest of this article, is itself proof of the anti-Semitic nature of this paragraph, regardless of the sources. You can not say that mainstream Jewish studies and belief in the messiah is cause of civil disobedience and poses a threat to the arab population. To do so to propagate a classic anti-Semitic lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk • contribs)

Yeshiva University, by all accounts a mainstream Jewish educational facility hires Hebron Yeshiva scholars regularly and supports the Herbon School. This includes J. Mitchell Orlian Associate Professor of Bible BRE, BA, MS, PhD, Yeshiva University; Ordination, Hebron Yeshiva, Israel. So it is hard to see how the source can be considered reliable. So the paragraph is in conflict with the rest of the article, quotes an unreliable source that doesn't have a NPV, and echos a classical false accusation that have been used for ages. It seems the paragraph is a form of anti-semitic rhetoric and that it should be pulled by Wikipedia standards

166.84.1.1 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There continues to be this anti-semetic smear on the Hebron page. Perhaps one can explain how the inconsistency in the article and how the paragraph in question proves to be not just a recooking of the Protocols of Zion? 166.84.1.1 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The work which was quoted is not from a non-biased point of view or a peer reviewed article. The author, Hanne Eggen Røislien, is a know anti-Jewish aggitator who has credentials in cyber-securty and is wholy incapable of balanced analysis. In his previous work, he accused the IDF of being a fundamentalist organization because their communiques during Rosh Hashona had articles about Holiday happenings and dippying apples into honey in his article "Religion and coming to terms with soldiering in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ". This is equivalent to complaining that Stars and Stripes is full of Christmas stories and that Christmas Carols are being sone by officers at a hospital visit... as proof that the US Army is a fundamentalist Christian organization. It is very dangerous when people like this are given any kind of serious consideration because any sign of Jewishness is translated as fundamentalism and danger to the world order.

"In the posted article in support for the bigoted and contradicted segment of this article being discussed, the paper starts out with this: In the West Bank city of Hebron the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still overshadows all activities. Despite the tension, friction, and violence that have become integral to the city’s everyday life, the Jewish Community of Hebron is expanding in numbers and geographical extent. Since the Six Day War, the community has attracted some of the most militant groups among the settlers in the West Bank, responsible for severe violence against Palestin- ians, including harassment, car bombs, and attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. Why do the members of the Jewish Community of Hebron wish to live and raise their children in such a violent setting? Using a series of interviews with members of the Jewish Community of He- bron and related settler communities in the period 2000–05, the article examines the ways the Jewish Community legitimizes its disputed presence. It reveals a deep religious belief, blended with intense distrust of and hatred toward the Palestinian population."

That in itself is inaccurate. The Hebron Community is limited to 70 families and has been so restricted for a long time. You would never know the Israeli's won the six day war by the reality in the city where Jewish Yeshivas have been in fact converted to Mosques. The community is a fraction of its size and population of previous generations. The final sentence is true about the entire worldwide Jewish population. After generations of racist hatred and terrorist attacks against the Jewish people, the entire Jewish population has a deep religious belief, but the articles standards which is an idiot standard as we can see from the previous complaints about apple and honey dipping, and intense distrust and hatred towards the Palestinian population.... not to mention the Germans, Ukrainians and Muslims and any number of other peoples who spill Jewish blood without remorse and repeatedly. The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of

The Article then claims, "The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of the incident on February 25, 1994, when Baruch Goldstein,an American-born settler and member of the illegal ultra- right Kach party, opened fire on Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of Abraham in the heart of Hebron,..." etc. This is WRONG factually. The current protocol was born from the Oslo accord.

Now, lets start with his bias analysis:

"In an interview on July 26, 2000, spokesperson David Wilder stated: Everything that happens now is written in the Tanakh [the Hebrew Bible]... . God decides everything. Hebron is where it all started and where it all continues. It is not a coincidence that the Jewish Community of Hebron exists today or that people do as they do there. History proves us right. The statement spells out two central dimensions in the worldview of the Jewish community of Hebron: Firstly, the literal understanding of the sacred texts. Secondly, the understanding of themselves as active and decisive parts in the cosmic puzzle called “contemporary history.” "

This is a completely IGNORANT analysis. This statement is a typical rehashing of basic Jewish theology which is universally accepted and what is flatly stated in the Torah,

A) that Sarah dies in Hebron and Abraham buries here there, along with the other patriarchs, and B) that all events in the world are under the guidance of god. C) Hebron is a special place for Jews to live in, as the stories of the Spies says in plain language.

If this is an example of radicalism, then the entire Jewish faith and the entire Jewish people are radicals, or the author is clueless. It does not justify the believe that the settlers in Hebron are fundamentalist who will disobey Israeli law and national orders, and randomly kill Palestinians. This has not been the case and it is still not the case. If you want to condem the Hebron settlers, and the IDF and Israel for being Jewish...SO BE IT. Such is what they are. Such is what we all are. And we all want to live in Peace and in our home land and safely in the broader scope of humanity.

This is not an example of the opening remarks truly NPOV article. You don't begin your analysis by picking out a quote of choice, wrapping it up in a a unsubstantiated conclusion, and then use that to propel the rest of your analysis. This is clearly and example of someone who has a perspective, chooses a choice piece of 'evidence' to justify their prejudice, and then goes on to write a document based on this prejudice.

Bases on this articles lack of prejudice alone, and its inaccuracies, this paragraph needs to be removed from the Wikipedia record.

96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Hanne Eggen Røislien is a female, and her phD was about about the role of religion in the IDF. Her Norwegian wp-page here. She has previously worked for the UN and TIPH, in Hebron. Presently working for a research-division of the Norwegian defence department. She is obviously a WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

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

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

The evidence is CLEAR that the quoted work is not NPOV.

166.84.1.2 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible that the defenders of this paragraph and of Røislien , PhD and expert can explain how this supposed expert on the middle east can't get the basic facts straight like the outline of the Oslo accords, and the events that triggered the inexcusable pogrom in Hebron in 1929, where SHE, pardon me, clearly blames on Jews in the same article, for wanting to pray at the Kotel in Jerusalem. When you perspective is skewed, there is always a reason too kill a few Jews. BTW her expertise is "Hanne Eggen Røislien (PhD) is a senior researcher with the Norwegian Armed Forces Cyber Defence and adjunct researcher with CSIS in Washington DC. Her current research focuses on cyber officers and information security culture". Here doctoral work on the IDF is fundamentally bigoted and starts with accusing the IDF of celebrating Rosh Hashona. NO institution of any substance would give this women a PdH on the studies of the IDF for accusing the Jewish States Army of discussing the Jewish New Year....

96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Røislien has her phD from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. She has also been working at Center for Strategic and International Studies, in the US. Like it or not; her work is clearly WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked into this, I think the IP does have a point. Notwithstanding that Røislien has a PhD, she seems to write not as a scholar but as an agitator. The kindest description would be anti-Israeli but the accusation of anti-Semitism does not appear far-fetched. I took a look at her writings, and found a very systematic bias where any Israeli victim passively "lost their lives" and any Palestinian victim actively "were killed", and any escalation always blamed only on the Israelis. That a person satisfies WP:RS only mean that we can include their views, not that we must or should. There are many WP:RS that fail WP:FRINGE for instance. I'd lean towards not including Røislien here nor in any other article. Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply. I'm rather surprised by this. I hadn't replied to the IPs' comments above, because they are unfocused rants, coming, by the looks of it, as often on this page, straight out of the community dealt with on this page, lacking even basic understandings of elementary history ('3000 year old Talmudic tradition,'= adding 11-12 centuries onto the Talmud, etc). I regard myself as responsible here, since I added that source, and the implication would be that I add anti-Semitic material to Wikipedia. So I'll reread the article and reply in due course.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding fulfilling WP:RS

• Hanne Eggen Røislien has a doctorate in the History of Religions. She has since specialized in the sociology of military cultures, and conflict studies.
• I think it was I who also introduced (a)Jerold Auerbach,'s Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, and Michael Feige's Settling in the hearts: Jewish fundamentalism in the occupied territories, to this page. Both of those books are characterized by an inability to go into the dark side of Hebron, except regarding Palestinians; they are very settler-friendly, and gloss over much. But they are indisputably RS, contain important information, and therefore one does not hesitate to use them. The same goes for Røislien.
• She has the right linguistic qualifications (Hebrew) and area specialist knowledge. The paper was based on intensive fieldwork over several years.
• She was published in a respectable academic journal the International Journal of Conflict and Violence
• The document is not about Judaism, it is about how Judaism is interpreted in those Hebron communities, which is often at odds with forms of interpretation current in other varieties of Judaism, orthodox, ultra-orthodox and reform. This appears in her own language (e.g.'Traditional rabbinic Judaism emphasizes the unity and oneness of God. 'However,the religious outlook of the Jewish Community of Hebron . .p.176, etc.)
• I can't see any trace of anti-Semitism, a serious charge that should be documented, and not just brandished about as a vituperative slogan (as the IPs did).
• I happen to be very familiar with both Hebron, and the religious messianic culture in that city. Everything in the paper is 'not new', is attested in numerous academic works on that city, except for the theological peculiarities regarding the infra-community theories of redemption.
• Just as Hebron has a highly conservative Islamic tradition,and has its own extremists (notoriously, the Qawasme clan), so too the Hebronite core community is flush with extremists. As Ian Lustick stated decades ago, it and other settler outposts like it are 'hothouses or political extremism’ characterized by ‘ruthless use of violence’. Otherwise, it would be inexplicable that a rabbi can get community applause for saying at Baruch Goldstein's funeral,-he had just machine-gunned dead 29 Muslims bowed in prayer- "one million Arabs aren't worth one Jewish fingernail," or no one there find anything unusual in hyper-'religious' women of some notoriety switching from nice homely smiles to termagant violence as you see here in an incident at Tel Rumeida, one of the most horrifying places in the West Bank for Palestinians, where all Arab women are 'whores' and their daughters 'cunts' all this said by people who frequent Hebron's yeshivot where senior charismatic teachers like Moshe Levinger, Baruch Marzel,Noam Federman and Dov Lior either have criminal backgrounds, or have been frequently hauled before courts in Israel or interrogated by the police for inflammatory statements or real violence against Palestinians. The article is not about Judaism, or Jews, but about a peculiar enclave culture within Judaism, a culture, curiously enough, which has a disproportionate number of American-born settlers in its ranks (Marzel is from Boston, Goldstein, like Meir Kahane, was from Brooklyn (as are Norman Finkelstein and Bernie Sanders - that's how diverse Judaism is), Yitzchak Ginsburgh etc. We are talking about very intricate microstories, deserving study, and the attempt by the IPs to annul these peculiarities by 'normalizing' everything as part of a world-wide 'Jewish' reality is a travesty of the larger Judaism, within Israel and the diaspora, as many rabbis have noted. This is the implication of Arik Ascherman 's mention of avodah zarah, blasphemous idolatry regarding the kind of redemptionist ideology used in Hebron to rob and thieve, and sometimes kill, an ideology Røislien's study documents from interviews with the Hebronites themselves.)Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote here addresses the basic problem that the paragraph is racist, and the author is NPOV and also racist.

• Hanne Eggen Røislien has a doctorate in the History of Religions. She has since specialized in the sociology of military cultures, and conflict studies.

• I think it was I who also introduced (a)Jerold Auerbach,'s Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, and Michael Feige's Settling in the hearts: Jewish fundamentalism in the occupied territories, to this page. Both of those books are characterized by an inability to go into the dark side of Hebron, except regarding Palestinians; they are very settler-friendly, and gloss over much. But they are indisputably RS, contain important information, and therefore one does not hesitate to use them. The same goes for Røislien.

No that is NOT here doctorate, read it again. And her expertise and employment is in computer cyber security.

Nothing you wrote here addresses that her paper, which was published an non-peer reviewed and radical venue, is not bigoted as shown in by the example. Addess the core issue or admit she is 100% NPOV and paragraph is unsubstaniated hate mongering.

As for your personal knowledge of the community, you have none, otherwise it would be obvious to you that the Hebron community is a mixture of different people and that consists of many people related to prior generations of Hebron's jewish population, despite the desire by the Arabs to kill them all. There are 70 families in Hebron. They are constantly pelted with rocks and under leathal threat, just becuause they are Jewish. Quoting what a few say on the street is disingenious at best. You think Bernie Sanders and Norman Finklestien are normal representations of Jewish thought and culture? ALL JUDIASM HAS AN IDEOLOGY OF MESHIANIC REDEMPTION. This is not a form of radicalism and it anti-semetic to use that as an excuse to hate Jews and to discrimenate against them in their homes, their history, their religion and there politics.

As has already been pointed out, aside fromt he NPOV of the author, the Hebron Yeshiva, which you have auslted here, is 100% mainstream in the Jewish community and supported by every major Yeshiva in the World, from Lakewood to Yeshiva University to Bar Ilan and the Mir. this has been pointed out by facts and detail in previous areas.

In fact, if we did, almost EVERY case you mention we can point out a NPOV author insupport of all those areas. When you look at the text you can SEE the author is a bigot, and the text is not done in a scholarly manner. It forms first a conclusion and then construction a proof with the selective use of interviews. You have here Jews who want to live in Hebron because it is their homeland and it is a mainstream accepted Mitzvot to live in Hebron. This does not make them radicals, it Makes them JEWS. Every year MILLIONS of Jews visit Hebron, even in bulletproof buses. So proposing that the desire to live in Hebron and professing a belief in the the coming of the Messhiah is core to Jewish believe for over 2 thousand years and will continue for another 2 thousand, if need be. The Chabad Organization is a radical orgnaization? Lubavatch Chabad own and lead much of the Hebron community and has since the 1800's. repeating to quote the text:

§§"In the posted article in support for the bigoted and contradicted segment of this article being discussed, the paper starts out with this: In the West Bank city of Hebron the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still overshadows all activities. Despite the tension, friction, and violence that have become integral to the city’s everyday life, the Jewish Community of Hebron is expanding in numbers and geographical extent. Since the Six Day War, the community has attracted some of the most militant groups among the settlers in the West Bank, responsible for severe violence against Palestin- ians, including harassment, car bombs, and attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. Why do the members of the Jewish Community of Hebron wish to live and raise their children in such a violent setting? Using a series of interviews with members of the Jewish Community of He- bron and related settler communities in the period 2000–05, the article examines the ways the Jewish Community legitimizes its disputed presence. It reveals a deep religious belief, blended with intense distrust of and hatred toward the Palestinian population."

The author is inaccurate in the core description. The community is NOT expanding in numbers of extent... it is ILLEGAL even for the children of the Jews who grew up in Hebron to live there. The community is by FAR not the most militant of the west bank settlers, although they are under lethal THREAT every day, and to show that Jews in Hebron after being murdered and targeted for assassination even until today, are both religious and suspicious of Palestinians is like proving water is wet. It is an outline for a bigoted thesis by a bigoted author incapable of a NPOV and sanctioned by "educational organizations" which are likewise bigots and incapable of a NPOV. BTW, to the original auther, the conflict doesn't overshadow ALL activities. It didn't stop the Palestinians from converting a major Jewish Yeshiva into a Mosque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is clear now that this author is not qualified to have her work presented on Wikipedia and that she does not write with a NPOV. The paragraph in question must be removed. 166.84.1.2 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing above, fraught with error, is relevant. We do not choose Reliable sources on the basis of whether they are 'neutral'. No sources are 'neutral'. We choose them according to credentials, the author's background, and the publication venue. The work in question fits these criteria. This is not a forum for unfocused rants. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

To REPEAT:

Maybe it is possible that the defenders of this paragraph and of Røislien , Phd and expert can explain how this supposed expert on the middle east seems to be ignorant of the basic facts, didn't seem to know who the Oslo accords shaped Hebron, excuses events like the masacre of defenseless Jews in Hebron in 1929, where SHE blames on Jews in the same article, for wanting to pray at the Kotel in Jerusalem as an excuse for the pogrom, doesn't know the limits that have been imposed on Jewish growth in Hebron, fails to account for Ben Gurions support for Hebron settlement etc etc.

When an authors perspective is skewed, there is always a reason too kill a few Jews. And she clearly implies this in paper. Her expertise is "Hanne Eggen Røislien (PhD) is a senior researcher with the Norwegian Armed Forces Cyber Defence and adjunct researcher with CSIS in Washington DC. Her current research focuses on cyber officers and information security culture".

Here doctoral work was not on comparative religion, but is on a single paper that states that the IDF is fundamentally bigoted and starts with accusing the IDF of celebrating Rosh Hashona. NO institution of any substance would give this women a PhD, based on the work she did here. She studies the IDF and accuses the Jewish States Army of celebrating the Jewish New Year....??

The only means of defending what she wrote is to admit the reader who agrees with it, without criticism, is likewise prejudice. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t respond to the long earlier ‘tirades’

. :::: the objection is not a tirade and you owe everyone else an apology for saying that.

above this last one, since we have had it before. The IP is evidently speaking on behalf of that community,

now you owe 2 apologies since that is not an issue although a quick look shows my ip address from the us, and infact the others as well

if not indeed a member of it. And the content is bewilderingly uninformed

that is your opinion, and not a good one.

even kids in kindergarten know the Talmudic writing began to be written from the first millenium C.E., not a ‘3000 year old Talmudic tradition.’ The complainant is so disattentive that he confuses the authoress with an author (‘In his previous work’)

your no expert on talmud studies evidenty not that this detail addresses the issue. Your just throwing as many things you can in the air to hope domething sticks

• 'the Hebron Yeshiva is the same Yeshiva that the Arabs tried to kill everyone in 1929.'

It isn’t.

yes it is. There is nothing to discuss about this. Your factually wrong as we've interviewed dozens of such graduates and placed studentd there. Your just making stuff up

Numerous testimonies note the historic break between the traditional Hebron yeshiva and the one refounded in that slaughtered community’s name, leading to much unease among the descendents of ther earlier community (pp.177-8. Confirmed by numerous RS)

• The screed accuses the IDF of being a fundamentalist organization.

Wrong, she argues that aspects of Jewish tradition are fundamental to the IDF’s training. ‘Fundamentalist’ is one thing: ‘fundamental’ (basic) another.

you couldn't read the first paragraph she wrote?

• 'To assert that the Yeshiva is a threat to Arab populations, which is what is being said in this paragraph, and which is in conflict with the rest of this article, is itself proof of the anti-Semitic nature of this paragraph, regardless of the sources.'

the article cites the core community’s leader Michael Wilder as saying:’ They are (Hebron’s Palestinians in a minimalist reading) animals” p.178. This again is a Hebronite settler commonplace: suffice it to read the graffiti scrawled all over the place there.

that is cherry picking and is not allowed in honest paper. She hss an opinion and then cherrypicks without context what she want.

that is what bigots do

• 'The Article then claims, "The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of the incident on February 25, 1994, when Baruch Goldstein,an American-born settler and member of the illegal ultra- right Kach party, opened fire on Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of Abraham in the heart of Hebron,..." This is WRONG factually. The current protocol was born from the Oslo accord..'

wrong

no it is correct and then later talks against herself. .sowhat. Its even worse. She knows she is lieing.

The authoress states (a) The division of Hebron into two zones, one Palestinian and one Israeli security zone (H1 and H2 respectively), is a result of the Hebron Protocol for Redployment signed on January 15, 1997, by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Likud government, at the time led by Benyamin Netanyahu.’ She is here alluding to the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron. The Oslo II Accord also postdated the 1994 massacre.

Never everything you write is factually wrong, or totally unfocused and selective, but no one is obliged to waste their lives responding to all the details.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

maybe you can address the point that deaths of jews is cold stats, but deaths of arabs are described zs tragic crimes?. We await you explsnation. Meanwhile she is a npov...

I stopped reading when you wrote:'the desire by the Arabs to kill them all.' That is literally the position of Hebron's rabbi Dov Lior. You are just spouting his projective psychology, the rationale for a thorough ethnic cleansing of Greater Israel of any one with 'Arab' blood, to dispatch them from their homeland to 'Arabia'. This is a courtesy note just to say I won't be replying to these ranting tirades any more.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I find it impossible to read this IP's text without the phrase "incoherent rant" coming into my head. Nothing useful can come from responding to fanatics. On the basis of WP:ARBPIA3, the IP is not allowed to edit here at all anyway. Furthermore, WP:ARBPIA3 entitles us to enforce the judgement, which overrules normal talk page protocol. In my opinion, IP's further postings here can and should be immediately deleted. Zero^talk 23:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your impressions not withstanding, please point out to me exactly were it says that you can lock up the talk section as you did. I believe you acted improperly, and I read the links you provided. If anything, those links support the position that the talk section should be locked up and furthermore emphasizes that when an author who can not conduct themselves in a __objective fashion__ then they can not be used as a source. Users who keep repeating POV rhetoric should be blocked from editing. This whole thing is about one paragraph. It is not about questioning the hostility of the two communities. It is not about the internal politics on either side of the cultural divide. It is not denying violence, Jews against Arabs and the reverse. It is about a paragraph that makes a leap from facts to making a broad accusation of an entire Jewish community that is unfounded.

It has been established without a doubt that the paragraph is based on works from an author who is is not objective. And then the editor of the paragraph has now said that it is not necessary to have a NPOV. So where are we at now?

Is there an objective truth or not? Or should the Jewish community just accept that since it is small and a minority that Wikipedia will always have a "consensus" that blame Jews for every problem, especially in places like Hebron, which has a long history of antisemitic political activity. We are looking at a paragraph that says that one of the mainstream and most beloved rabbis of the 20th century is a fundamentalist radical who fuels a deadly messianic cult. It is not right. I ask you to please remove the limitation on this talk area and that we should seek out more experts on this issue in order to settle the matter.

Your Truly

Reuvain Safir Mrbrklyn (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

'It has been established without a doubt that the paragraph is based on works from an author who is is not objective.'

(a)a ranting IP made this statement. That any editor talking to himself can 'establish beyond doubt' that his own opinion is authoritative looks like a misappropriation of the doctrine of Papal infallibility into Wikipedia.

(b)both the IP and yourself are wholly unfamiliar wiki practice, which does not require that sources be 'objective'. No sources are objective. To repeat to you what was said to that editor, sources must be reliably published and, optimally, come from qualified scholars, and these criteria have been met.

(c) Apropos stacking a dozen or more images above the settlement section, this looks very odd to me. It is an open invitation to editors to get a similar number of images, of people caged, being shot, of empty streets with Israeli guards, of street checkpoints, women held at gunpoint, frisking, children with school satchels climbing through allies or being interrogated while going to school, etc.etc. I suggest they be removed and the issue discussed.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides which, most of them are not even good images. Zero^talk 11:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There are several policy issues here, not least of which WP:COI, in the sense this looks like a push by people connected with the settlement to (WP:PROMO) promote this particular enclave, though I may be wrong. (b) We have a long-standing practice of proportionate representation: the page is about Hebron, which has 2 distinct populations, about 200,000 Palestinians and 800 Jewish settlers. The stacking of a huge number of photos about the latters breaks this proportion, which was, before the edit, fairly balanced in terms, not of numbers, but historic significance for both communities. I had some others in mind, but my post-prandial digestive processes are interfering with my cerebral lucidity, as the blood drains down to mob and swab up the busy chemical traffic in my stomach.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I want to be quite clear on something. Are you saying that I represent the Hebron Jewish Community? I live at 1580 east 19th Street Brooklyn, NY apartment 1E. My email is ruben@mrbrklyn.com and it is registered as this

• Registrant Name: RUBEN SAFIR
• Registrant Organization: NYLXS
• Registrant Street: 1580 East 19th Street
• Registrant City: BROOKLYN
• Registrant State/Province: New York
• Registrant Postal Code: 11230
• Registrant Country: US
• Registrant Phone: +1.7187151771
• Registrant Phone Ext:
• Registrant Fax: +1.231231234
• Registrant Fax Ext:
• Registrant Email: ruben@mrbrklyn.com
• Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry
• Admin Name: RUBEN SAFIR
• Admin Organization: NYLXS
• Admin Street: 1580 East 19th Street
• Admin City: BROOKLYN
• Admin State/Province: New York
• Admin Postal Code: 11230
• Admin Country: US
• Admin Phone: +1.7187151771
• Admin Phone Ext:
• Admin Fax: +1.231231234
• Admin Fax Ext:

and its been registered since before 9-11. I'm a registered pharmacist in this state. Please either explain how I am a representitive of the Hebron Community, or retract that statement, which you have made about several people several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Nishidani, I am not appreciating your condescending tone. This is not my first go around with wikipedia. Between the two of us, you are far more partial than I am on this section. All one needs to do is look at your wikipedia page, which is all about Palestinian rights, and my home page which is all about Brooklyn, Fish and my Grandmother. So lets clear the deck of the snide remarks on your part so we can begin to hash out what happened to the deleted segments on the paragraph in question, especially that of Jeppiz, whose quote was shortened. If I'm wrong on this, correct me and I'll apologize. I'll say this for you, kid, I came to you like a mensch and your reply was disrespectful.

Also, put my photographs back, please. They belong on the page, and I happen to be a fairly decent photographer. If your going to accuse an entire community of messianic fervor that encourage violence in order to bring the end of the world, you can at least have few pics of the core principle locations and participants of the dispute. If you want to reduce the number, we can negotiate. Mrbrklyn (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Mrbrklyn: it was RolandR who removed the photographs (Not Nishidani). And I agree with RolandR: all those photos were too much. There are several hundred photos about Hebron on "commons"; we should choose photos according to what is representative of the whole of Hebron. And Jeppiz full quote is still here. (We don´t need to repeat it, and repeat it.) Also, if you could bring any source (which fulfils WP:RS) which questions Røisliens qualifications, then please bring them. But just saying "she is biased" does not count for much on Wikipedia. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely immaterial who you really are, or claim to be. What is quite clear is that, under the recent arbitration ruling, you are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", which includes this talk page as well as the article itself. I advise you to observe this restriction and cease editing here or elsewhere in breach of the ruling, in order to avoid further editing restrictions being placed on your account. RolandR (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. Under what basis do you draw that conclusion? Just under general, I don't like what he says and therefor don't post anything here which is related to the topic? What specific guideline did I trespass?

Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to the large number of disruptive accounts editing articles such as this one, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was made policy. Your account does not meet the requirements to edit this article or the talk page, you should be grateful we've responded to you so far despite the length, lack of focus, and bias of your comments. Sepsis II (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My account has been up since 2007 and I've nearly a thousand edits on wikipedia, most before most readers were old enough to find a keyboard. And this is not even my first account. I lost the password to my initial account back in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What does this read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Neutrality_and_sources

It says, bluntly that all sources must be NPOV.

I am certainly not bias. So far the only thing I've posted is on a specific paragraph, and the validity of the NPOV of an author based on her text as laying out here by other editors. That and objecting to being categorized improperly. I think this needs to be taken to arbitration. Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(a)I'm not interested in your identity. That's a private thing you keep to yourself.

(b)I wrote of the appearance that 'This (is) a push by people' on the basis of.

(i)24.38.3.28

(ii)96.57.23.82

(iii)166.84.1.1

(iv)Mrbrklyn

The diversity of IP addresses which I didn't care to check suggested a plurality of identities, even if the prose, and the numerous grammatical and spelling errors suggested the same person. If I'm was wrong, it is not material to the issue. You yourself gave the impression several people agreed with you, when in fact it emerges only you alone are asserting the view stated by these several addresses.

(c)You misread the linked policy. The sources you cite do not say 'bluntly that all sources must be NPOV.'

It is within your right to take this to arbitration. I think the situation quite clear, and justifies the removal.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz did agree with him actually, but his reasoning was also flawed and violated BLP. I see no reason for removing the source or adding any more photos of settlers to an article about Hebron. Sepsis II (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz's note was the reason I added my remarks, rather than ignore the complaint. He is a very independent-minded and fair editor. If he had that corroborative impression, then obviously the complaint itself demanded close examination. I saw now BLP violation there at all. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You have continually made projections about the IP addresses used in this conversation. First, they were all part of the community, despite that they are from the US. And now, they are all sock puppets based on your expert analysis. This is just another attempt to stifle discussion about the use of NPOV material to create a foundation for a paragraph that is repugnant. But just for the record, 96.57.23.82 is mine and it used or shared with about 18 friends and family in the building. I've been warned by other users that editors protecting this biased paragraph will now attack the ip address. I find it hard to believe that you guys would stoop that low.... right guys?

Now as to the paragraph, honestly from a point of logic, not much more can be said. The author is biased. And your saying it is allowed to be presented without even a commentary. And as for other writings, we have a policy representation of facts according to population. but the Jewish population keeps being reduced, century after century, because they are being killed...

It seems like a nice tight bow that has been produced.

Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

'I've been warned by other users that editors protecting this biased paragraph will now attack the ip address.' Enough said.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so. You know, Nishidani, I never had much interest in the Jewish community in Hebron. When I go to Israel, I spend most of my time in the Jacuzzi at the Artist Colony Inn in Tzfat. I was happy to see Machpelah as a tourist, and that was about it. But after reading all this and the response here, I have to admit that you have convinced me that they serve a vital moderating influence on the region. Do you have an email address for that Rabbi, David Wilder? Mrbrklyn (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Reuvain

Well, you were lucky to get a better reception than these Jews who had the misfortune to be harassed and pushed around by Noam Federman, serving, as you say, 'a vital moderating influence on the region.' David Wilder is not a rabbi. If you want to contact him check his Facebook page.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That is it? That is all you got on Federman? I've seen worse pushing on the London underground when a bunch of Muslim youths were harassing a muslin teenage girl in a short skirt. I had to physically intervene before they stripped off her skirt....

Now that was nasty. This dancing around by Federman was just some theater. You must have better footage than that? No carefully edited can throwing something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hebron Pictures

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

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

Mrbrklyn (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) If the people who control this page, and many Jewish pages are pro-palestinian bigots, communists and political radicals, how can anyone trust this information here and across Wikipedia? The controlling editor here admits to being culpable to being biased against Jews.

− 24.38.3.27 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

− − They aren't. They are outright dedicated to supporting a single POV and admit that they have no interest in a NPOV. Read through this whole thing and see it.

− Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes, the city is propsering quite well despite being a hamass strong hold. Maybe that says something about the core of the Arabs who live there, and is hopeful for a peaceful future...