Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wye River?[edit]

This line seems very incorrect:

".. in 1996 the Wye River Accords, part of the Arab-Israeli peace process, included a temporary status agreement for the site restricting access for both Jews and Muslims. As part of this agreement, the waqf controls 81% of the building."

Wye River was 1998, but said nothing of Hebron, which was adressed earlier in the 1997 Hebron Agreement. To my knowledge neither mentioned access to the Cave of the Patriarchs? (Brasselimburg (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC))


Their graves are made inaccessible by the cenotaphs that cover them. That's a curious statement. A cenotaph is a monument to someone buried somewhere else. I can't imagine anyone being more important to the custodians (past or present) of this site than the people buried here! So who are these cenotaphs honouring? Is there some explanation I've missed? Andrewa 07:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Control[edit]

"Until June 1967 Jews were forbidden from entering the site, and were not allowed past the seventh step leading up to the tombs." This is misleading. To put it correctly, Jews were forbidden from entering the site until 1929, when Jews were killed during riots, and the Brittish authorities evicted surviving Jews from visiting Hebron. After 1948, no Jews were allowed to enter anywhere in Jordanian-occupied areas of Palestine.

There being no furthe comment or objection raised, I am going to make the change in the articleKepipesiom (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Limited access?[edit]

"Despite Israeli control of the West Bank, access by Jews remains limited."

Removed this statement. I question this because I saw settlers going in and of the site many times, and Jewish tour groups were in the area several times while I was in Hebron last month. The above sentence implies that there are active restrictions to Jewish access. If this is accurate, would someone like to clarify the nature of these restrictions? AW

Jews are only allowed access to 20% of the cave and are only allowed acces to Isaac's Tomb which is included in the 80% about 9 days a year. I don't know why Muslims care about Isaac'c Tomb for. They call the "mosque" they built there the "Ibrahami Mosque" so I don't know why they don't care about Abraham's Tomb instead.

Hebron has been a Jewish city for 4,000 years. Instead of calling it a "Palestinian" city say who lives there and let people decide for themselves what kind of city it is. I think Palestinian is a propanda term itself but if you insist on using it you should include the Jewish position as well. The government of The State of Israel does not have the authority to decide what is a Jewish city and what isn't. It was a Jewish city before there ever was a State of Israel and it is in fact the second holiest city in Judaism only after Jerusalem. It was the first property that Jews bought in The Land of Israel stretching back to when Abraham bought it to bury Sarah.

Actually, "the Muslims" didn't build a mosque, the redid the Jewish monument that was already there, and renamed the site the "Ibrahimi Mosque". The building is little changed from the expansions made by Herod the Great. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
Actually "the Muslims" didn't redo a Jewish monument already there. The Herodian complex was just the outside walls, there was no roof. Byzantine Christians added a basilica. Persians destroyed the basilica. Egyptians captured it from the Persians and built a mosque on the ruins. Crusaders converted the mosque to a church. "The Muslims" (specifically Saladin) then reconverted it back to a mosque. --User talk:FDuffy 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in the West Bank and have visited the Ibrahimi Mosque severally times. Due to my direct experience, things I have seen with my own eyes, I find it misleading to say that 81% of the building is controlled by Muslims, because, regardless of how much space the mosque occupies and how much space the synagogue occupies, in fact access to the building is effectively controlled by the IDF and you have to pass about 3 checkpoints to get in. Certain Palestinian Muslims are not allowed in, depending on their residency in Hebron, the West Bank or Israel and I (from Ireland) was harassed by the soldiers when I was going in, being asked personal, irrelevant questions about my religion before being allowed in. So, true "control" is in the hands of the Israelis, as they decide "arbitrarily" who gets in and who doesn't.

I am a Christian (Roman Catholic) and I visited the Cave of the Patriarchs in March 2006. As I was with a group of Muslim friends, I did not go to the Jewish entrance, so I can only speak of entering from the side assigned to Muslims. We went through a few IDF checkpoints. At the last one, immediately before the entrance, the IDF soldier asked my friend who went first in the group in Arabic if we were all Muslims. He began to explain that all were Muslims but one was Christian, but the soldier cut him off and asked again, "All Muslims, right?" and he waved us through after taking away our cameras. Luckily, due to my Mexican heritage I could pass as Palestinian, and know how to do Muslim prayer, so I shut up and blended in. As we were performing the noon prayer, the soldier entered the mosque and returned our cameras! (As I recall, we had to show our passports, so the American passports may have induced the guard to return the cameras.) So I was able to provide the photo of the cenotaph over Abraham's tomb provided in the entry. Had the guard actually been told that I was Christian, I do not believe the IDF would have allowed me to enter, but that's my impression. Most of the people in the mosque were old men, and I was told by my Palestinain friends that younger Muslim men are often denied access. -- Ericstoltz 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time you visit with a camera, could you please take photographs of the cave entrance from a distance (so you can see the structure over it), of the mosque roof (from the inside, so that the vaulting can be seen), of the northwestern courtyard from the ground, of the cenotaphs of Jacob or Leah from a distance (so that the wall decoration and octagonality is clearly visible), of the Mamluk staircase on the outside, of the castle/Joseph's cenotaph, and of the 7th step on the outside? Thanks in advance. --User talk:FDuffy 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is message to all my non- muslim brothers that we(MUSLIMS) are too followers of all the patriarchs.And the all were send from One God Allah to spread his religion and Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Access by Muslims??[edit]

I visited the building in March 2005. This involved passing one check point about 100 meters from the building, going through metal detectors right outside the building, and one more check inside the building. There had been some violence a couple of days earlier and our Muslim host was not let past the check point but I was able to obtain a classification as a Christian and was let in. There were Jews praying inside, with a number of Israeli soldiers sitting with their rifles. Access by Muslims does not seem guaranteed.

How about a picture of the cave?[edit]

I tried to find a picture of the cave on Google, and all that came back was the Mosque. Is picturing the cave not allowed or something? I can't believe there isn't a decent picture out there. I think a picture of the actual cave should lead the article. The Ibrahimi Mosque can be placed further down somewhere. Can anyone upload a good picture of the cave? --AladdinSE 01:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone has access to the actual cave. When I visited in 2006, you could squint and peer down into a shaft of the cave through a metal grate, and you had to look really hard to see a votive lamp about 20 feet down and an accumulation of written prayer requests on the ground of the shaft, about 40 feet down. The openings on the grate did not permit me to take a photo. -- Ericstoltz 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 person is known to have entered the cave complex since the 12th century (a girl named Michal - here is a photo of her entering the cave [2] through the tiny metal grate), there an additional unconfirment claim that a former director Israeli Antiquities authority got into the cave (with permission from the waqf) in 1981; there is also a claim on a website that a gang of youths managed to get in. None of these took photographs. Michal took measurements. The grate does not look into the cave, but instead looks into a Herodian chamber above the cave; Michal did not technically enter the cave, she just entered this area. There are no photos of the Herodian chamber either. --User talk:FDuffy 19:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edit[edit]

Hi. I recently changed a passage that could be contested to reflect a more neutral stance and it was reverted. Let's reach a compromise on this?

The Cave of the Patriarchs is considered to be the spiritual center of the ancient city of Hebron in [the Judean part of what is collectivelly known by the world as the West Bank.] It is called in Hebrew Me-arat Hamachpelah (מערת המכפלה): "The Cave of the 'double' caves or tombs", because (according to Jewish tradition) its hidden twin caves are considered to be the burial place of four "pairs" of important Biblical couples: (1) Adam and Eve; (2) Abraham and Sarah; (3) Isaac and Rebekah; (4) Jacob and Leah.

The parts placed in square brackets are what I believe is pro-Israel POV...

suggested edit:

The Cave of the Patriarchs is considered to be the spiritual center of the ancient city of Hebron in the West Bank. It is called in Hebrew Me-arat Hamachpelah (מערת המכפלה): "The Cave of the 'double' caves or tombs", because (according to Jewish tradition) its hidden twin caves are considered to be the burial place of four "pairs" of important Biblical couples: (1) Adam and Eve; (2) Abraham and Sarah; (3) Isaac and Rebekah; (4) Jacob and Leah.

Sorry I didn't do this before E:

This is an article about a place holy to Judaism. It is located in ancient Judea. Using the term "West Bank" robs it of its spiritual context. The place where it is is known to Jews as Judea and to the world as the west bank; there is nothing pov about it.

Guy Montag 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Cave of the Patriarchs is holy to many religions, not just the Jewish one. If there is to be a spiritual context to the article, then it should encompass all beliefs equally - it is my opinion that using the term Judean to describe a multi-religious and multi-cultural area is simply unbalanced.--FarQPwnsJoo 12:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Historically, it is a Jewish religious site that happens to be important to other religions. I am not going to let you erase that with multi-cultural whitewashing.

Guy Montag 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not "whitewashing", what is there now is quite Jewish-POV and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a vehicle for the opinions of one group, it should seriously be changed... --FarQPwnsJoo 22:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand your point. It's not opinion, its fact. This is a historically Jewish religious site, stating so is not pov, its historical fact. If you do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, than we shouldn't be having this discussion. By trying to "multiculturalize" it you are bieng historically innacurate. All it says is that it is in the Judean part of what is known as the west bank by the world. All of this is historically correct. Why? Because it does lie in historical Judea, and the rest of the world does know it as the west bank. Basic knowledge of the Bible and ancient Jewish history confirms this. You're the only one who seems to be having this problem, a problem that I solved through discussion with Arab posters months ago.

Guy Montag 04:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the Arabic name of this place is pure POV. Editors Jayjg and Guy Montag provide no reason for its removal.Yuber(talk) 20:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I certainly did; I restored the pre-edit war version. I would be an extremely helpful practice for you, Yuber, if you tried to work things through in Talk: first, rather than simply revert warring every article you come across, quite often as your first edit. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have still not explained to me why the Arabic place name was removed.Yuber(talk) 21:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I did, both above, and in the edit summary; was there something you didn't understand about them? Also, did you read the edit summary regarding the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Mosque not being identical? In fact, they are not, and this article is about the Cave of the Patriarchs. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

" in the Judean part of what is collectivelly known by the world as the West Bank."[edit]

Guy, I think the phrase "in the Judean part of what is collectivelly known by the world as the West Bank" really is superfluous, and just promotes a Zionist POV. I'd take it out, but I'm getting tired of reverting this article today. Would you mind taking it back out again? Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I could. I did not want to include as much a Zionist POV as the fact that Hebron is in Ancient Judea. If you click the link, you will see that well it basically says that the Cave is in ancient Judea. I wanted a way to historically incorporate that into the text. It is historically important to Jews around the world, so I do not think glossing over this fact is NPOV in itself. I will see how I can NPOV it without erasing the Judea note.

Guy Montag 23:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you should just take the whole thing out; it doesn't really add to the specific article, and it just appears to be pushing a POV. Jayjg (talk) 05:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the changes I made?

Guy Montag 06:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's in the southwest of the West Bank, not the westernmost part. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's nowhere near the West Bank. It's 15 miles west of the middle of Yam haMelach, approximately 20 miles south of the southern terminus of the Yarden. It's not on any bank, and certainly not on the west bank of the Yarden. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 20:36 (UTC)


I want to do the Mosque of Ibrahim as seperate from this, because every single thing about this article reflects a jewish POV, not a neutral one. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Um, even the stuff about the Ibrahami mosque "reflects a jewish POV"? And you figure creating a Muslim POV article fork will solve that? Why not just add more info about the mosque here? Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Caption of the lead picture[edit]

I am confused about whether the Cave and the Mosque are separate or the same. A couple of months ago, the last time I worked on this article, the caption of the main picture read: "The facade and minarets of the Ibrahimi Mosque. The Cave of the Patriarchs is contained inside the building." Now it reads: "The facade and minarets of the place Jews refer to as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Muslims refer to as the Ibrahimi Mosque." Do Jews consider the minarets and other structures built by the Muslims as part of the Cave of the Patriarchs? I was under the impression that the Jewish holy sight was the actual geological cave and the tombs contained therein, which are beneath the mosque, a separate object from the cave. Is that inaccurate? If the Cave and the Muslim facade buildings are separate, ought we not revert to the previous caption that says that the cave lies beneath the mosque? In April I put in a Talk section "How about a picture of the cave?" asking if there were any pictures available of the actual cave or the tombs, so we could have a picture of both, but no one responded. --AladdinSE 21:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Only the Herodian building and the Cave are regarded as one structure. Now that it is a mosque, the Cave is separate from it.
Guy Montag 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you know if there any available pictures of the tombs, cave, or Herodian structures? I wonder why there were no google hits for those. It would be wonderful to have those kinds of pictures alongside the Mosque facade. --AladdinSE 05:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Judaism considers the site the second most sacred site"[edit]

Sorry to make a fuss, I did grow up in a staunchly secular family, but I know a thing or two about Judaism, and this is the first I've heard there's a "second holiest" place in Judaism. I know of the three places purchased by the ancestors, I know of the four holy cities, but I never knew the Cave was second holiest. While those articles quoted, as well as the Jewish Virtual Library, say it is so, I haven't been able to confirm it from any Hebrew-language source. I've consulted a few books and Google and haven't seen this fact mentioned in any of them. Am I being silly and this is common knowledge?--Doron 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is pretty common knowledge, as far as I can tell.Guy Montag 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've provided two links which state as much - will that do? Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is it second holiest if it is the most antique? 06:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the distinction ought to be given to Tel Rumeida, although the current use of said hill is residental and, unfortunately, military/ militant. 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Holiness and age need not correlate. TewfikTalk 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to revive this discussion and restate Doron's original claim that this site is not holy. Holiness is ascribed to places of worship and although this cave is one, that is not its primary objective. see also Maimonides who gives no credence to burial grounds and would completely negate any holiness or importance of the site of burial of any figure, no matter how biblically important they were. Claiming that this burial ground contains holiness is a very controversial statement and omitting this sentence would do much better in following wikipedia's values and of balance and unbias.--Raphmam (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty in erasing the discussed line. This is in no way common knowledge and replacing the aforementioned statement requires a source to be mentioned within the body of the article as well relating this opinion to its generator.--Raphmam (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Unreferenced[edit]

You'll notice I've added the "unreferenced" tag to this article. Much of it is extremely PoV and unsubstantiated, especially the "Current Situation" section. Whoever wrote this or has more extensive knowledge on the topic should please clean it up. -- pm_shef 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre[edit]

Why don't we just link to the related article? Is it really necessary to added original researched POV material about the massacre to THIS article? Goldstein NEVER gave a reason to ANYBODY for what he did from what I can tell. Now, there seems to be a lot of speculation and theories about why he did what he did. That is interesting but not encyclopediac it seems. Also, how is that being rude? I admitt that I am no expert but I am becoming one based on the ongoing edit war over this. Anyways, --Tom 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply added a little bit more background and linked to the main article. The information is from the commission who investigated the incident, so it cannot be anymore pov than a historical fact. If you have conflicting information, or that this information is false, then list it here and when I see it, we can either delete the information or keep it, but it is not going to be based on your hunch or your own theories. Guy Montag 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Commission made it clear that Goldstein never gave ANYONE, including his wife, a reason for what he did. Theories about WHY he did what he did are just that and do not belong here. They are here say at best and not encyclodediatic.--Tom 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see some sources regarding that. The second I see that he kept his mouth shut or gave no indication of his motives, I will erase the information and speak of it no more. So far I see information another user cited pointing to his motive and no information that you cited. Guy Montag 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Commission report? It states that NOBODY was aware of what he was going to do. He acted independtly. Therefore, people can only SPECULATE about why he did what he did. Please QUOTE directly from it(the report) where it shows his SPECIFIC motive or EVEN THEORY. The more plausible motive, and the one mentioned before all this theory debate started was that Goldstein did what he did to disrupt the on going peace process. This to however, is SPECULATION. The report talks of suspected planned attacks of Jews by Arabs but says nothing specifically about when it was to take place. Arabs are ALWAYS planning to kill Jews, whats new there? Anyways....--Tom 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Guy Montag 03:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom: In your reply to Guy Montag, you raised some good points and asked some valid questions. I shall now try and reply to these points and questions.

You write: “The report talks of suspected planned attacks of Jews by Arabs but says nothing specifically about when it was to take place. Arabs are ALWAYS planning to kill Jews, whats new there? Anyways....”

In fact there is evidence that this Arab attack would take place on Purim morning in the Cave of Machpelah:

1) One of the IDF officers, Lieutenant Yitzchak Hamudot, in his testimony under oath to the Shamgar Commission said that all the warnings, orders and explanations which were circulated in the days up to Purim, referred to a planned attack on the Jews during their prayer service in the Cave of Machpelah at half past seven on the morning of Purim. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes p.927]

2) Two newspaper reporters, Yigal Amitai and Yitzchak Kainan, for the daily “Yom Layom” wrote that they had received information from senior officials in the intelligence service “Shabak” that the Hamas had planned a massive attack on the Jews in the Cave of Machpelah on the morning of Purim. [Yom Layom 10 April 1994 p.1]

3) Ruthie Moshe gave evidence under oath in a court case that when she told a Hebron Arab worker (who at the time was working in her house), that she was going to be in the CAVE OF MACHPELAH on PURIM, he replied "Don't go to the Cave of Machpelah. Go to Kiryat Arba. It is safer." [Baruch Ha-Gever trial, Jerusalem Magistrates Court, 1997, Minutes p.57]

4) Warnings were given to the Israeli guards at the Cave of Machpelah that on the days immediately before Purim, the Arabs might try and smuggle explosives into that place.[Shamgar Commission: Report p.28; Minutes pp.518-19]

5) Almost all the 800 Arabs (an unprecedented number!) that Purim morning entered the Cave of Machpelah by the East Gate where they knew that the metal detector [which would detect smuggled weapons] was broken, although there was nothing to stop them from going through the Main Gate. They had even broken the East Gate’s metal detector even more on the PREVIOUS NIGHT [Shamgar Commission: Report p.15; Minutes pp.203 bet-gimmel] This number of Arabs included 300 women and they knew that the regulations forbade the searching of women, even by women soldiers. Also remember that Moslem women wear very long dresses. [Shamgar Commission: Report p.18; Minutes p.203 gimmel]

6) There were various reports of finding weapons in the Cave of Machpelah in the Hall where the Arabs had been. (A check showed that they did not belong to Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the soldiers or Jews then present in the Cave of Machpelah.)[Shamgar Commission: Report pp.46, 59-60, 223; Exhibits 1137(1), 1137(52)]

7) The Arabs had distributed a leaflet in Hebron saying that on Purim or the day after - the stress being on Purim - an Arab terrorist attack would take place in Hebron. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits, Reports from Logs of Operation Rooms of 2 separate Israeli Army units] The existence of this leaflet was also reported in the Shamgar Report. [Shamgar Commission: Report pp.79, 223] (This leaflet stated the date although not the place)

You wrote: “Have you read the Commission report? It states that NOBODY was aware of what he was going to do. He acted independtly. Therefore, people can only SPECULATE about why he did what he did. Please QUOTE directly from it (the report) where it shows his SPECIFIC motive or EVEN THEORY.”

1) A fair amount of evidence at the proceedings of the Shamgar Commission was taken behind closed doors and many of the Exhibits are still closed to the public. However we do know that in addition to the published Shamgar Report, there is a SECRET SUPPLEMENT. This fact we know from the Mayor of the Hebron Jewish Municipal Council,Avraham Ben-Yoseph. In his position, he visits many army and civilian offices, and he saw both in the office of Regional IDF Commander and in the office of the IDF Area Commanding General, the OUTSIDE of this secret supplement. Obviously he could not look inside it! According to hearsay reports of its contents, it states that Baruch Goldstein’s act was a pre-emptive strike to prevent a massacre of Jews. I immediately admit that this is hearsay, but no more so that the statement: “When Israel captured the area during the 1967 Six Day War, it is said that then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was given the keys and was supposedly shown the actual secret hidden passageways that lead to the below-ground tombs” which appears in this Wikipedia “Cave of the Patriarchs” article!

2) It is true that Baruch Goldstein told nobody of his intentions for that Purim. It would seem to me that there are two good reasons for this, a) Three days before Purim, a meeting was called at a few hours' notice by Major General Shaul Mofaz, Commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, for the Mayor and Councillors of Kiryat Arba. At this meeting, General Mofaz informed them that a terrorist organisation was planning to execute a serious attack during the coming days. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 217 aleph p.6, 678] Dr. Goldstein was a member of a medical team that would have been called out if such an attack had taken place. He would thus have been given ADVANCE warning by the authorities of the likelihood of such an attack, so that the necessary preparations could be made to meet such an emergency. Following this meeting with Colonel Mofaz, Dr. Goldstein was informed of these warnings in order to make the necessary preparations. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 207 p.1, 208 p.1, 217 aleph pp.4-5; signed statement by Kiryat Arba Councillor Bella Gonen] After Dr. Goldstein heard about the meeting with General Mofaz, he went to the Mayor of the Hebron Jewish Municipal Council. Avraham Ben-Yoseph and said in a voice full of emotion and on the verge of tears “Will you allow this to happen? Why not take action to avoid this catastrophe.” It is said that “walls have ears” and had there been the slightest knowledge of Goldstein’s intentions, he would very likely have ended up in the Israeli infamous “administrative detention” and the massacre of Jews might then of gone on as planned. [The question which immediately comes to mind is why wasn’t the Government of Israel going to take measures to prevent such a massacre. Here of course one comes on to speculation and only after secret Government records have been opened 50 -100 years after the event, will we know the true answer. Meanwhile we can only guess. At that period the very left wing Government of Israel had just recognised the PLO and was negotiating the handover to them of cities and areas populated by Arabs. One of these cities was Hebron. But in the centre of Hebron was Jewish settlement and this could torpedo any agreement. In 1929, in the Arab pogrom on the Jews of Hebron, nearly 70 Jews were massacred and this resulted in the removal of the entire Hebron Jewish community from the city. Likewise a similar massacre against the Jews in Hebron in 1994 could have produced similar results. I fully admit this is only a theory. However, we do know that Yitzchak Rabin who was then Prime Minister and Minister of Defense (and thus was in possession of the most highly classified material) was opposed to the setting up of a Commission to investigate this Purim incident, and only after the members of his Cabinet insisted did Rabin agree. [Ma’ariv, mussaf Pesach. 25 March 1994, p.2] Also, in its Report, the Shamgar Commission was very critical of the lack of protection given by the Israeli Government to the Jewish settlers in these areas [Shamgar Commission: Report pp.152, 167, 168]] b) the second reason for Goldstein not telling anyone of his intentions could well be that this would make them accessory before the fact and by them not reporting this to the authorities, could land them a jail sentence. This occurred with Margalit Har-Shefi who spent 9 months in jail for not informing the authorities of Yigal Amir’s intentions. [ Margalit Har-Shefi v. State of Israel, Israel Supreme Court I.P. 3417/99. 21 February 2001]

Tom: please let me have your comments on the above.

Simonschaim 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simon, I have read the report that is linked from Wikipedia and NEVER saw evidence that there was specific evidence of a planned aatack for the morning in question. I'll be honest that I am very busy right now and can't do the research this deserves. Can you provide DETAILED links with the evidence you suggest? Is there a link to the FULL report in ENGLISH?? Thanks....--Tom 14:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Please see my message to you under the Talk page of "Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre"

Simonschaim 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


I removed this line: "The tombs of Abraham and Sarah are synagogues, whereas the tomb of Isaac and Rebekah is a mosque." Not true. The tombs (or cenotaphs) of Abraham and Sarah are between the mosque and the synagogue, with grates that allow them to be viewed from either section. Ericstoltz 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed category[edit]

I have removed the category : Category:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques. --Tom 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Like with everything else in the Holy Land, this site was used for worship by others before Islam dominated and occupied the land. I see no reason for removing the cat. The article states quite clearly: “In 614, the Persians conquered the area and destroyed the church, leaving only ruins, but in 637, the area came under the control of the Muslims, and the whole enclosure was converted to a roofed mosque." and "In 1100, the enclosure once again became a church, after the area was captured by the Crusaders, and Muslims were no longer permitted to enter; during this period the area was given a new gabled roof, clerestory windows, and vaulting. However, in 1188, Saladin conquered the area, reconverting the enclosure to a mosque." Chesdovi 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted myself. Thanks --Tom 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

metric units[edit]

I have converted the measurements into metric. This is an encyclopaedia and not eg an (American) newspaper. International units should be used. My problem is the cubit measurement! What are cubits? Please someone put them into metric asap. Benqish 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Book of Adam and Eve[edit]

Can we put in a section concerning the apochriphal biblical book of Adam and Eve wherein they are banished from the garden and are sent by God to live in the cave of treasures, which is believed to be one and the same as this cave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam and Eve[edit]

last month an IP removed Adam and Eve fromt the top of the article so it reads "the site is the burial place of three Biblical couples: (1) Abraham and Sarah; (2) Isaac and Rebekah; (3) Jacob and Leah."

however down below adam and eve are still listed. and uncited. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other, as it stands now the article is contradicting itself, it says 6 people in on spot and 8 in another. Smitty1337 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing it until somebody can cite a source. I can find none that support it, only sources that say 6 people. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rashi's commentary on Genesis 23:2 quotes the Midrash Bereishis Rabbah that one of the reasons that Kiryat Arba, the location of the tomb is called that is because of the four couples buried there, the first of which is Adam and Eve. --Ezra Wax (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add Adam and Eve back in[edit]

I am repeating my remark from above to ask somebody to fix the article.

Rashi's commentary on Genesis 23:2 quotes the Midrash Bereishis Rabbah that one of the reasons that Kiryat Arba, the location of the tomb is called that is because of the four couples buried there, the first of which is Adam and Eve and the rest of them as stated. --Ezra Wax (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixing a tradition with the Genesis account confuses things. Adam and Eve have been moved to a separate statement below the others. Does someone have the reference and quote to support the supposed tradition? Arba was plainly said to be the father of Anak in Joshua 15:13 and Joshua 21:11, and a "great man among the Anakims" in Joshua 14:15. The city is twice called "the city of Arba" in the accounts. The place was already called Kirjath-Arba when Sarah died, so the idea that it was called that because of 4 couples is contrary to the actual history in Genesis. Abraham rejected the offer of the people to use one of their sepulchres where people were already buried.
And technically, the Bible does not say that Eve died. Adam and all the other creatures were made from dead dirt, and Adam returned to the dust. Eve, whose name means "life", came from a LIVE rib from Adam's side.
(Life goes on. Enoch didn't die. Elijah didn't die. :)
Telpardec (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the source of information must be cited, and that it is important to distinguish them, if that is indeed what you meant. What is written in the text of the Bible should be separated from the Oral Law or other sources of tradition, all of which can now be referenced as published works just as the Bible can. On the question of Adam and Eve, the midrashic source B'reshith Rabba can be cited in the "Legends and traditions" portion of the article, which only references something in the Zohar as the source of that piece of information. Certainly that would not "confuse things"? So I'd like to agree with user Ezra Wax that this problem needs to be rectified.
(By the way, the link to ",_Nancy_Miller,_BAR_11:03,_May/Jun_1985.", incorrectly numbered "[2]", is broken. Apparently the source that someone tried to provide for this piece of information is copyrighted and stuck behind a paywall. Since this is the only reference to Adam and Eve in the whole article, a better source must be provided.)
I find your second point ("Life goes on....") to be extremely bizarre, though. It may be interesting as an individual's speculation that Ḥava/Eve escaped death, but it doesn't disprove the midrashic tradition whatsoever. Furthermore, if only events that were explicitly stated to have happened in the Bible happened, and if only persons who were explicitly stated to have died in the Bible are actually dead, then there must be thousands of Biblical characters still hanging around nowadays. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent article[edit]

According to Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post:

Way before the homicidal agitation of British-appointed Jerusalem mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, it was a widespread Arab sport to hurl human excrement from atop the Temple Mount at Jews praying below. But Husseini decided to usurp the wall’s sanctity for Islam, decreeing it to be the hitching-post where Muhammad tethered his super-steed al-Buraq. That presumably overrode and erased all Jewish associations to the site. The insistence of Jews to keep praying at the remnant of their Holiest of Holies, despite mounting Arab violence, eventually gave birth to Husseini’s hysterical incitement charging Jewish takeover attempts of al-Aksa Mosque. His shrill provocation culminated in the 1929 countrywide “slaughter-the-Jews” campaign, most notorious for the Hebron massacre that disrupted many centuries of continuous Jewish presence in town.


I would think this it is relevant that Hussenini was the first to claim that the Temple wall was where Muhammad tethered his steed, and also that this led to the 1929 Hebron massacre. I would like to add something. Any thoughts?

Any particular reason for striking this out? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Because of who wrote it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it's Stellarkid. Edit summary could be helpful in this case. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ [1]

Palestinian flag[edit]

Jiujitsuguy, why did you remove the Palestinian flag in this edit and call Chesdovi an "activist editor" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reword of lead[edit]

I suggest:

The Cave of the Patriarchs or the Cave of Machpelah (Hebrew: מערת המכפלה, Me'arat ha-Machpela, trans. "cave of the double tombs"), known by Muslims as the Sanctuary of Abraham or Ibrahimi Mosque (Arabic: الحرم الإبراهيمي‎‎, About this sound Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi ), is a series of subterranean caves located the heart of Hebrons old city. Situated beneath a large rectangular Herodian era structure, the Arabic name of the complex reflects the prominence given to the biblical and koranic prophet Abraham, believed to be interred at the site. The Hebrew name refers to either the physical layout of the burial chamber, or alternatively to the biblical couples buried within. Chesdovi (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


The "Israeli control" section begins with the sentence: "From the time of the Arab-Islamic conquest of Hebron in the 7th century until the present, the holy site has been used as a mosque". A couple paragraphs up however is the sentence: "In 1100, after the area was captured by the Crusaders, the enclosure once again became a church and Muslims were no longer permitted to enter". Thoughts? Jujutacular talk 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the first sentence of the Israeli control section. Jujutacular talk 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the exact reference for the historical data "in 637, the area came under the control of the Muslims and the building was reconstructed as a roofed mosque" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tomb of Abraham.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Tomb of Abraham.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Title of the Page[edit]

Why isn't page called 'Ibrahimi Mosque'? It is currently the 'Ibrahimi Mosque' so it should be called that right? - e.g. "Ibrahimi mosque used to be called Cave of Patriarchs...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

no, the name shall remain "Cave of the Patriarchs". Please read WP:COMMONNAME, where it is stated that Wikipedia English does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, which in this case is surely "Cave of the Patriarchs". Further, the mosque occupies only a portion of the historical building. A ntv (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Architecture Should be Described.[edit]

The site is not described properly - the structure and furnishing of the mosque are not mentioned, nor who built what. Does anything remain of the churches, for example? (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Here is a starting point -;ISL;pa;Mon01;13;en (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are Biblical Origins History?[edit]

I am the same editor as the ip above. Biblical origins do not, in my opinion, belong in the history section, but rather in the legends and traditions section. While people may have lived for 175 years, to me that improbability alone disqualifies the Biblical Origin Section from being part of History.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk ) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but isn't that the way it is now? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

well if someone could get some Archaeological artifacts from it, it might not be a legend anymore. Sadya goan (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Noise Pollution[edit]

"Israeli authorities have placed restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin of the Ibrahimi mosque. The order was enforced 61 times in October 2014, and 52 times in December of that year. The reason given is that the call to prayer bothers Jewish settlers in the city." (from the article). This text is unbalanced. It fails to recognize the counter points raised here. I am reluctant to fix this myself because of my inherent conflict of interest as a supporter of Jewish access to the Machpella Cave. Could someone please correct this? Please? -- Naytz (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Naytz. Can you suggest more neutral wording, or recommend more neutral sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Until a neutral NPOV wording can be agreed upon, I think the passage should be struck out of the article altogether. Moreover I think that the passage should be removed as soon as possible because it violates WP:BLP. (The Jewish residents of Chevron are living people.) To give context, I'd like also to point out that "placing restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin" is in no way unusual even in Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt which place decibel level limits on the prayer call. -- Naytz (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how it is a BLP violation if it states the facts neutrally . You can discuss it at WP:BLPN though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It does not state the facts neutrally. The citation is a clearly anti-Israel publication. It neglects to point that sound level restrictions for prayer calls is normal in the Muslim world. It neglects to point out the many times Israel has not enforced its noise level regulations, letting the muezzin blare unnecessarily loudly, to the vexation of the Jewish residents. It also fails to point out the actions the restrictions the Israeli government has placed an Jewish music, so as not to bother the Muslim residents. Besides, even if it would be worded neutrally, the "Loud Speaker Wars" are not terribly relevant to the Cave of the Patriarchs article and may be more appropriate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Hebron article. --Naytz (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Naytz. There are a lot of anti-Israel publications and there are a lot of anti-Palestine publications. Some on each side are reliable and some on each side are nothing more than propaganda outlets. It is no surprise that many publications covering the Israel/Palestinian conflict have a strong point of view. If the loudspeakers are at the cave, then the content belongs in this article. If you want to remove referenced content, then the burden is on you to suggest alternate wording and bring forward better sources. Your reliable source needs to discuss the loudspeaker situation in Hebron in the context of the sound level restrictions in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Otherwise, your comments and comparisons are original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. How am I or any other reader supposed to know that the Jewish music volume does not exceed regulatory decibel levels, while the Moslem call to prayer does exceed the decibel levels, unless we have a reliable source saying so? Again, please bring forward the reliable sources and the suggested wording, or please consider moving on to another article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: How is this wording? "Israeli authorities have placed restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin of the Ibrahimi mosque. The order was enforced 61 times in October 2014, and 52 times in December of that year. This was following numerous complaints by the Jewish residents who claim that the calls violate legal decibel limits. In December 2009 Israeli authorities banned Jewish music habitually played at the cave following similar complaints from the Arab residents." Thanks Naytz (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that verifies this information, Naytz? I think the level of detail should be similar for both sides of the noise dispute. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are, and,7340,L-3777410,00.html any less than ? I don't believe any of these sources are balanced or objective, but taken together they paint a clear picture. Naytz (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) @Cullen328: It should be noted that while ynet is a Jewish website, they are politically liberal and do NOT tend to support Jewish settlements in the west bank. Naytz (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The first source looks like a community blog to me and I do not think it qualifies as a reliable source. I think the Ynet and Ma'an News Agency sources are OK for supporting the basic facts of this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If so, can the changes be implemented? As it stands currently, it is unbalanced. I don't feel I should make the change myself. :) --Naytz (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) @Cullen328: Has consensus been established? Naytz (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Naytz, I have no objection to a neutral, even-handed discussion of the noise regulations referenced to Ynet and Ma'an. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest addition[edit]

User:Debresser: This addition (which I tried to undo) by CarlSerafino should have been undone at once, for a start he does not fulfil the 30/500 limit. Secondly, using (=the settlers mouth-piece) and (a "false-flag" anon website) as WP:RS!!! Seriously.......Huldra (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser: and as for "2. Undid rename of header singling out Israeli period. 3. Undo capitals against wp:MOS." Yeah, of course we want to "single out" the Israeli period! This place is not included in Israel! But 3: please feel free to keep that. (Just stop re-introducing crap "sources" to Wikipedia) Huldra (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought the capitalization was following MOS...but the change in some wording was unnecessary and the sources poor. Sepsis II (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but it should still be "Israeli authority" (and not "Israeli period"), me thinks, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, me thinks differently. The term "Israel authority" is unclear compared to "Israeli period", especially when compared to the usage of "period" in the previous headers. Not to mention that most, if not all, of the powers ruling the area ruled by right of conquest. Singling out Israel is unclear and POV. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The difference is, of course, that this place has not been annexed by Israel. This place was part of the Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires, it is not a part of Israel. Not even the Israeli government claims that. In a way, it is similar to Rachel's Tomb. There one use "Ottoman period" etc for the earlier eras, while one use "Israeli control" for the post-67. I think that is a fair wording, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The place is security-wise controlled by Israel. But I do understand your point. Perhaps another word besides "authority"? Debresser (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh right, I didn't really think about that, there should be a section entitled Palestinian period (named after the locals, not a state) that should start post Ottomans and continue to present with the occupation by various states since then as sub sections. Sepsis II (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Debresser: As I suggested: the same as for Rachel's Tomb: "Israeli control"? (But Sepsis also has a point; we really should have something for the whole of the post-1967-period) Huldra (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
"Israeli control" is fine with me. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cave of the Patriarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


I fully intend to repeat my edit after 24 hours, changing "their own roads" to "roads in the area". First reason, because of personal attack in the edit summary. The reverting editor is referred to WP:NPA and WP:AGF in this regard. The main reasons being of course more serious: 1. "their own roads" is a POV statement. 2. who are the precise owners of the roads is left vaguely unexplained 3. the source does not use such expressions, rather uses more neutral expressions, and "roads in the area" is a direct quote form the article. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cave of the Patriarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

In the ...#Judaism section, there is now a reference to Gen. 23:2 and Kiryat Arba. Arba means four in Hebrew. The fourth couple can't be Moses and his wife, since this would defy Deut. 34:6, "no one knows his (Moses') burial place to this day." Moreover, Rashi to Gen. 23:2 lists the four couples chronologically, starting with Adam and Eve.
For purposes of not simply deleting what someone else placed here, the text to be removed, which refers to "Sorry ... Page Not Found" (Jan. 18,'17) is moved here-
Certain Kabbalah texts also add that Moses and Zipporah are buried in the cave. [3]
Dad7 (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

It looks like I'm technically able to edit this article but I'm not allowed to. Please either protect it (if IP editors really aren't allowed to edit it) or remove the warning (if IP editors are allowed to). Also, please modify the phrase "According to tradition that has been associated with the Holy Books Torah, Bible and the Quran" by changing it to "According to tradition that has been associated with the Bible and the Quran" because the Torah is part of the Bible (Jews call it the first part of the Tanakh, and Christians call it part of the Old Testament). (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done. The Torah deserves its own mention. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you say the Book of Genesis, then? It looks silly to say both Torah and Bible when one's part of the other, because it makes it look like we think they're separate things. (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Because they are different things. The Torah is only the Five Books of Moses. The Bible has a whole new testament in addition, which, in addition, also reflects on the status of the Five Books of Moses. Debresser (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The point is to convey its importance for all three religions--Shrike (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
So why not say "Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" instead? (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
We could say "Torah, Old Testament and Quran", but keeping the present "Torah, Bible and Quran" does the same job in a more logical way. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation with respect to status as World Heritage Site[edit]

There seems to be some debate about whether or not to classify this place as a World Heritage Site in Israel. This was recently brought up at Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Israel#The Old Town of Hebron has just been declared a "World Heritage Site" and briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), where the proposal did not garner support. UNESCO's official listing locates the site in Palestine, apparently somewhat contentiously.

I have removed this page from Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel, because I think the official UNESCO location should be used, as it is their list of World Heritage Sites. I do not think it inappropriate that List of World Heritage Sites in Israel appears in the "See also" section, even though the Cave of the Patriarchs is not listed there, as it is a very closely related topic. For clarity, I feel Category:Israel National Heritage Site is obviously appropriate, since that list is put together by a different entity with a different perspective. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

our categorization doesn't need to follow unesco, nor should it. To avoid conflict my suggestion at AN was to use both places in the cat.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the discussion at AN (here); thanks for bringing that to my attention. It appears to be substantially similar to the one at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), but with even lower participation. I'll make a note at the VPP discussion about this one, but I don't think it's necessary to ping the participants. I think this talk page is probably the correct venue. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle with Sir Joseph, the use of the category is still valid with respect to the Cave of the Patriarchs and/or the Old Town of Hebron for the simple reason that its being designated as a World Heritage Site is irrelevant of the country, seeing that the identification of the place itself is undisputed, although the UNESCO board members have opted to take a political stand by not calling the country of its location "Israel," using instead the word "Palestine." The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country, the one word used in place of the other by Jews and by Arabs.Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Davidbena, I am not an expert in this subject area, but I don't think geographical identity of Israel with Palestine is accepted use and understanding, at least not since 1948. Our encyclopaedia does not adopt this definition at either the Palestine nor Israel articles. I don't think UNESCO sees Israel and Palestine as synonymous either: for example they list White City (Tel Aviv) as located in Israel, ditto for Incense Route – Desert Cities in the Negev and likely everything on this list. Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Wikipedia never uses Israel and Palestine as alternative names for the same territory in any contemporary (post-1948) context, and for good reason. In my view, Davidbena intends to politicize this topic (as is shown in the reply to my post below, where Davidbena quite unnecessarily cites the Peel commission) and is using this UNESCO declaration as a "thin edge of the wedge" in order to blur the very clear distinctions between the historical Land of Israel and the contemporary Israeli state. If the Hebron article indicates that it is in the West Bank and contemporary Palestine, not in Israel, then the same is true of the UNESCO site. Davidbena's statement below, that Hebron is a "no-place", is disingenuous and contrary to both fact and Wikipedia consensus - it is in the West Bank and Palestine. Period. End of discussion.Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in the Village Pump discussion, the Wikipedia article for Israel is in fact an article on the State of Israel and observes the boundaries of said state, which do not include Hebron (the WP article on Hebron notes, correctly, that it is a city in the West Bank, in Palestine). All of the articles on World Heritage Sites by country use the modern borders of their respective countries, so there is no valid argument to locate this site in Israel since it is not, in fact, in Israel. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, in my humble opinion, there is still a valid argument, seeing that the final borders of the "State of Israel" with respect to the Palestinians have yet to be finalized, and by saying that Hebron is not in Israel proper, you have taken sides in this argument. Secondly, it was Great Britain who first decided to partition the country known as "Palestine" by dividing it into two sovereign regions, which never came to fruition. Considering the history of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to 1948, Britain decided in 1936 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948, published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166: "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews." (End Quote). In this matter, nothing has been resolved. Still, prior to these recommendations, the area of Hebron was called by Jews and Arabs "Palestine," as was it called in classical Hebrew literature dating back to the 2nd-century CE "the Land of Israel." It is not our place to politicize the situation, simply because UNESCO wishes to do so. By your logic, Hebron is a "no-place" - neither in Israel, nor in Palestine. Do you see how ridiculous such an argument holds?Davidbena (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's true what you say about the borders not being finalised, but please see International recognition of the State of Palestine. It's my feeling (which I may not have articulated in my original post) that adopting UNESCO's classification is the apolitical action to take regarding this site, and that listing it as a World Heritage Site in Israel would constitute politicisation of the topic. Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In my view, the proper way of maintaining a neutral posture and not showing interest or involvement in politics (i.e. being apolitical) is to use both words interchangeably, just as I have done in this article, Mosaic of Rehob. After all, no one doubts that we are referring here to the same country, especially when both "Palestine" and the "Land of Israel" have been used together since the beginning of the last two millennia.Davidbena (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There are no World Heritage Sites in Biblical Israel or Mandate Palestine for the simple reason that all WHS have been designated since 1972. Machu Picchu is not a "World Heritage Site in the Inca Empire," because these two terms never overlapped in time. When we say "by country" we mean the present, without feeding the extralegal ambitions of either side in international disputes.--Carwil (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a World Heritage Site in Israel because it is not in Israel. No further reason is required. Zerotalk 09:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
My dear friend, who calls himself "Zero", to be as blunt and frank as I can about your statement, that is a gross "misrepresentation" of the truth. UNESCO explicitly mentions Masada as being a World Heritage Site in Israel, as you can see here: UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Israel, and yet we all know that Masada is located in the "West Bank," a place captured by the IDF in 1967, just as Hebron was captured in 1967. So what makes Hebron different from Masada? Nothing, except political motives! In fact, no juridical legitimacy or anything "binding" can be ascribed to UNESCO's decision to mention the Old Town of Hebron (the Cave of the Patriarchs) as a WHS in Palestine, when earlier it mentioned the 1st-century CE fortress of Masada as a WHS in Israel. We, therefore, as able editors on this noble venue should not be confused or distracted by POV of existential sources caught-up in the Arab-Israeli conflict, when it comes to the topography of places well-known and defined in historical records.Davidbena (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
False equivalency, Davidbena, as well as an invalid WP:OSE argument. Masada was recognized by UNESCO long after 1967, in a part of the West Bank where Israel has exercised political control continuously since before that time. This is not the case for Hebron. Why continue to muddy the waters? You are the one bringing POV to a geographical issue which is already settled in the existing WP articles before the recent "promotion" of this site by UNESCO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Davidbena: David, Masada is not in the West Bank. It has been under Israeli control from 1948 until now. Please check your facts more diligently. Zerotalk 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. Only goes to show that no man is unassailable. I had overlooked the southern boundary of Israel's conquest during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and which remained under Israeli control long afterwards. All said and done, the semantic problem still remains unresolved here, that is, by calling half of the country "Palestine" and half of the country "Israel," as political names/entities are often disguises for old geographical names. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zero0000:, my contention is that you cannot call half of the country "Palestine" and half of the country "Israel," when both toponyms were used for ONE and THE SAME country. Besides, it was the British who first proposed dividing the country in 1937, and which proposal eventually led to a war between Jews and Arabs, each trying to gain as much control of the country as possible. As far as borders are concerned, nothing has been resolved between the two parties in this dispute ---- a dispute, mind you, which I call one of the great "political intrigues" of the 21st century! Have a good day (here, it's evening).Davidbena (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Davidbena, this isn't a discussion about the world heritage site anymore (and I suspect it never was) - you are calling into question Wikipedia's entire current consensus about the nomenclature of places in the West Bank and Gaza. To actually revisit this consensus would require an appropriately formulated RfC, at the very least. It cannot possibly be settled on this talk page, or at the Teahouse, or at AN. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, Editors have been "politicizing" the situation since who-knows-when. But why do you insist on politicizing the situation when it negates Wikipedia's stated policy? As you can see here, the Israeli objection to calling regions of the country by two names - the one "Palestine" and the other "Israel" - based on political motives, or more precisely, on the now defunct 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, is what we are dealing with here. (For the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, see discussion here [Green Line]). Israelis view the entire country as one, but to give two separate names for two regions of the country is inherently wrong and is based on perpetuating an errant political stand taken by the British in 1937 who sought to divide the country. Moreover, the 1949 Armistice Agreement is no longer binding. While some might refuse to recognize Israel's de facto claims and hold of this territory, hoping to return to the pre-1967 border, the reality is such that the entire country is called "Israel" by the Israelis who live here. What's more, in a broader sense, the country's historical and geographical names have never changed, whether Palestine or the Land of Israel. So, I object to your claim that this discussion isn't about the "World Heritage Sites in Israel," as it still is. As for Wikipedia's naming conventions, the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed. My proposal is to leave the "West Bank" just as it is (since it only describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan), but to add a disclaimer there, stating to the effect that Wikipedia's use of the words "Palestine" and/or "Israel" are meant to be understood apolitically, and as purely geographical-historical terms used in antiquity. In this manner, we steer clear from politicizing the situation. Whenever editors mention "Israel" and their intent is to describe a political case involving the State of Israel, or the Government of Israel, the words "State of Israel" or "Government of Israel" should preface their editorial entry.Davidbena (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Let us bear in mind that the common name of "Palestine" often applies to its pure geographical and historical sense and connotation, just as we often come across the name when reading historical works. Have you never read English translations of Al-Muqaddasi who describes Palestine in the 10th-century? Have you never seen descriptions of flora in Palestine, in the works written by Al-Tamimi, the physician? The same would apply to the use of the common name, the "Land of Israel," often used in rabbinic literature --- such as the Mishnah (Kelim 1:6), compiled in 189 CE. It's one thing to politicize names; it's another thing to recognize their broader usages and connotations. Just because UNESCO politicizes the situation, this doesn't mean that we have to do so. My proposal would give a satisfactory solution to this problem, and allow us to use the category: "World Heritage Sites in Israel." After all, our understanding of "Israel" when given the disclaimer (i.e. an apolitical term) is not bound by any political statements made by UNESCO or others.Davidbena (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
My recollection is that, when we refer to a location in disputed territory, we put it in both categories. Am I wrong? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That is also a temporary solution, although it doesn't address the problem of "geographical-historical" uses of the same name.Davidbena (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: I'm not aware of such a practice for world heritage sites, but even if there was one the Israeli government does not claim this site to be in Israel so the issue doesn't arise. Zerotalk 10:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
So, in your view, Zero0000, what was the objection of the Israeli Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UNESCO declaration? (Look here) Was it not because the government of Israel exercises de facto rule over these parts, and considers them an integral part of the multi-national and Jewish State of Israel? Of course, that is the reason why he voiced his displeasure at the UNESCO declaration, where it, in turn, referred politically to the region as "Palestine." You see, the matter of how the country should be called is disputed on political grounds by two peoples (Jews and Arabs), with Israelis calling it Israel, including Hebron. We ought to steer clear from this dispute, and use the words apolitically.Davidbena (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to see this too: Netanyahu Protests UNESCO Hebron Decision with Scripture.---Davidbena (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, as an administrator, you are expected to uphold Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. How are you doing this by taking sides in this dispute?Davidbena (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zero0000: It's a practice for all "xxx by country" categories. Why should "World Heritage sites" be different? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, for us to place Hebron in Israel when even Israel doesn't place Hebron in Israel would be a massive violation of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. (I avoided more colorful words with difficulty.) Zerotalk 20:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Can you please tell me what you have on which to base your claim that "Israel has not placed Hebron in Israel"? Are you referring to the pre-1967 border as defined in the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan? Please explain. All modern Israeli maps published by the Government of Israel do, indeed, mention the old demarcation lines, but also mention the entire country as the "State of Israel" (Heb. מדינת ישראל).Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to waste my time here, but to respond to Davidbena's original reply to me, above, Wikipedia Israel refers to the modern country, Israel, its state, government and people. To refer to something that existed before 1948, the Land of Israel or other terms altogether are used. Any change to this practice could not be settled here, but only through (at minimum) an RfC. What is more, the motives behind Davidbena's proposed use of Palestine and Israel as synonyms are manifestly political, and irridentist, as has been expressed passim, but the substance of that would be to be discussed not here but at the eventual RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What you said about me is not true, my friend, and you have not assumed "Good Faith" towards me. Irredentist is defined by Oxford Dictionary as: "1. A person advocating the restoration to their country of any territory formerly belonging to it." This is not true of me because Wikipedia cannot change the borders that already exist. Besides, in Jewish orthodox law, even if the country were governed completely by non-Jews, it does NOT change the halachic requirements associated with the land and a Jew's obligation to uphold those laws vis-à-vis the country. Who the country is, therefore, governed by is totally irrelevant here. I have been trying my best to deal with a problematic issue, the issue of rampant POV editing, as in the case of the UNESCO declaration concerning Hebron and our being prevented from listing the site in Israel, on biased political grounds, rather than historical grounds.Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Your argument (that the limits of current control by Israeli forces should be seen as the de jure borders) is a hopelessly irridentist argument - your denial here is equivalent to saying that the current Russian claim to Crimea is not irridentism!
You are "being prevented" from listing the site in Israel by other editors (indeed by the results of prior consensus) not on political or historical grounds, but on legal grounds which are the only ones that apply to the lists of UNESCO world heritage sites by country. I did in fact assume good faith towards you initially, but it is now clear that you are using this site as a WP:SOAPBOX to correct what you perceive to be a slight towards Israel by UNESCO. Not the place. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, on this thread I neither argued in favor of, nor against, Israel's de jure control of the country, but only mentioned this with respect to the Israeli Prime-Minister's view of the situation (as opposed to UNESCO). No more and no less. Of course, I also know how Israelis see their own country, as I am an Israeli. Your last statement shows that you are incapable of seeing how religious Jews can be impartial in what concerns edits here, on Wikipedia, and, again, you misjudge me and my intentions. In all fairness, how can you say that I am using this to advocate my own political agenda ("soapboxing") when all that I want to do is to emphasize neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict?Davidbena (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Your position only seems "neutral" to you because of your eccentric POV. This is not about whether or not religious Jews can be impartial (of course you can); it is about whether you personally are willing to observe consensus and recognize how NPOV can be maintained in this case (by treating all countries the same in the UNESCO sites by country lists). Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you please cite one example where I may have strayed from the path of neutrality in all that I have suggested should be done here? I see no consensus where we cannot use the category, "World heritage sites in Israel", for Hebron's "Cave of the Patriarchs." What I do see, however, is a dispute between editors, some trying to insert it, while others deleting it. So, the reason for deleting such a category in Hebron's case is based purely upon recognition or non-recognition of disputed borders. This is a fact. Amendments are usually made to rectify disputes such as this. As a seasoned editor, and forgetting for a moment this particular issue, what would you recommend that we do to impress upon our fellow co-editors to adhere to neutrality (WP:NPOV) in matters of dispute? Any suggestions?Davidbena (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality in this case means that the Cave should be treated the same way as Hebron itself or other sites in the West Bank, and should not be assigned to the Israel category based on POV special pleading. You can't come up against a widespread consensus about a practice (in thus case a nomenclature) and argue for a local resolution that doesn't take into account the overall consensus. If you want Israel to be taken you mean the same as the Land of Israel for the naming of contemporary places, you have to build a consensus for that change. Good luck. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

and it shouldn't be in Palestine only either. That's why it should be in North. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Absurdly, I think the root of our debate here might be the word in. When UNESCO designates a World Heritage Site, they don't qualify it as being in some country or another: they list a state party. See here or here for examples of UNESCO's official listings. However, in our encyclopaedia, for the sake of brevity and readability, we don't have, for example, Category:World Heritage Sites where the state party is …, or Category:World Heritage Sites whose state party is designated as …. We have Category:World Heritage Sites in …, which works identically for all cases except where the political status of the geographic area wherein the World Heritage Site is situated is under dispute.

For World Heritage Sites, the template we use, Template:designation list, gives the designation1_free1name paramter the value State Party, not Location or some other value. The sole authoritative source on the designation of World Heritage Sites, including the state party thereof, is UNESCO. We have no authority to challenge any part of UNESCO's designations of their own project. Categorising this page's parent as a "World Heritage Site in Israel" is equally unencyclopaedic as creating Category:Israel National Heritage Sites in Palestine, and categorising Qumran Caves and Cave of the Patriarchs as such. The Israel National Heritage project is an effort of the Israeli Government, and we have no authority to question their designations in their own project. WP:NPOV instructs us to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I will repeat that the sole reliable source for any part of UNESCO's designation of World Heritage Sites is UNESCO itself.

User:Arthur Rubin, you ask above if when we refer to a location in disputed territory, we put it in both categories. Your recollection does seem incorrect, at least within the scope of World Heritage Sites: the other two World Heritage Sites where the state party is Palestine (Battir and the Church of the Nativity), are both in Category:World Heritage Sites in Palestine, and neither is in Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel. I agree with your sentiment that it would be absurd to move a site based on UNESCO's choice of country, and that is what the majority of us in these discussions are trying to prevent. User:Davidbena has taken exception to UNESCO's choice of state party being Palestine, and is attempting to add an unsupported categorisation.

Davidbena, I am not a particularly active editor, and my usual area of editing is pre-Tang Chinese history, but I would characterise the views you have expressed during the course of these discussions as some of the most fringe I have seen expressed on this site. You have said that "For me, Palestine, the Land of Israel and Judea are one and the same country." Fair enough, but the geographical identity of Palestine with Israel is hardly, as you claim "accepted use and understanding". You have two or three times cited a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as if it were a reliable source and had any more encyclopaedic value than a tweet from Doland Trump, you have stated Palestine … is NOT a sovereign State (see International recognition of the State of Palestine), you claim "UNESCO has an overwhelming Arab membership" when three of the fifty-eight executive board members are representatives of Arab states, and in the same post you describe Israel's settlements in Palestinian lands – widely considered illegal as a violation of the fourth Geneva convention – using the language "Jewish towns have sprung-up". I am not trying to criticise you for having a point of view, but when you go on to ask "Can you please cite one example where I may have strayed from the path of neutrality…?", it betrays a lack of self-awareness towards your own bias, and I feel it would benefit you to reassess your own ability to maintain a neutral editing stance in topic areas you are clearly so passionate about. Finally, if, as you say, "Israelis do not need the world's approval or disapproval, as G-d is our witness", why are you expending so much time and effort to push through the addition of a single category tag on, at maximum, three pages on the English Wikipedia? I respectfully ask you let the matter drop. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor:, you have taken my statements out-of-context, as each was made to stress a certain antithesis in this unending debate; argument > rejoinder; argument > rejoinder, etc., only to give some balance and "true reflection" of both sides of the conflict. That, my friend, is how we resolve disputes. You must be open to hearing both sides of the argument. But it seems that you prefer hearing only one side of the argument, because you find fault with me that I brought down the antithesis of the other argument. Sigh. Although I do have my own personal views in this matter, my suggestions for rectifying what I see as a clear bias among editors treating on the Arab-Israeli conflict still override my own personal convictions. Everyone knows that there is no "sovereign State of Palestine," otherwise, there would be no conflict. But this does not mean that I dislike the Palestinian Arabs, many of whom I know personally and even work with occasionally. In fact, I have lived among Arabs, in Syria and in Yemen, although it is here in Israel, that I have lived the longest. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not new to me.Davidbena (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Davidbena I never meant to imply that you dislike Palestinian Arabs or any other people. I'm not optimistic we'll be able to find a solution to our category tagging here that will please everybody, but I want you to know that I value you as a colleague. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So, what we need to do is

  1. Rename Category:World Heritage Sites by country to Category:World Heritage Sites by designated State
  2. Remove the Israel and Palestine World Heritage Site categories and lists in neither or both of the regular Israel and Palestine hierarchies.
  3. Change the description of those articles and categories to note that it's by designated State, not by actual State. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would "we" need to do any of that? We have Wikipedia articles on Palestine and on various places that are located in Palestine. Hebron is a place located in Palestine, so it seems that world heritage sites located in Hebron are also located in Palestine. This "designated" business doesn't seem relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal makes sense, as a matter of fact, and will resolve any sch issues for once and for all. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Davidbena, please stop. The only time we use historical territory definitions is when we are explicitly discussing historical events when those definitions applied. Under no circumstances are we going to allow historical arguments in regard to the current location of a place. We are either going to use World Heritage's classification Palestine, or we are going to use a current uncontrovercial national borders territory, or the site is going to be listed under List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. Listing it in Israel is a NON-OPTION unless and until it is internationally and uncontrovercially recognized as within the formal borders of the current Nation-State of Israel. Alsee (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, within the article of Hebron (the Cave of the Patriarchs), not only are contemporary events mentioned there, but also historical events. And, yes, a country's name might change, depending on the era, but this, in my view, is but a secondary issue, when EVERYONE agrees to its older appellations used by its ancient inhabitants. Anyway, I can see that I'm in the minority view here, and so I will desist from pressing this issue. The second best option is to do what you have suggested, namely, to change the category's name to read: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. I can agree to that as a second option if others will also agree.Davidbena (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion on the idea of a Disputed Territories list, I think the viability of this approach depends on whether the sites in Crimea, Kashmir and/or Tibet could also be placed there by consensus. It would make no sense at all to use the Disputed category just for sites in Israel/Palestine, when other sites are in equally or more profoundly/acutely disputed territories. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You have a good point there, but the question that I would ask is whether or not there have been conflicting edits on those pages you've mentioned. Here, in this case, there have been conflicting edits, and we would do ourselves a service to mend it.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee "internationally" fine, but "uncontrovercially" is putting the threshold to high. That is why I think thatit is best to forgo all controversy, including the arguments how much of a controversy is or isn't acceptable, and simply go by the designation of the UN, as proposed by Newimpartial. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhh you guys are aware that even Israel does not claim Hebron, any part of it, to be in Israel, right? How is this even a thing? Does the word "Palestine" cause some involuntary reaction that it must be beaten down by repeating "Israel" ad infinitum? nableezy - 07:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct only insofar that the Government of Israel has not made any "de jure" declaration of annexation with regard to Hebron, although the Israeli government has and still does place Hebron and the "West Bank" on maps that are designated entirely as "Israel," or the "State of Israel." I have read also in other places that there is actually a "de facto" annexation of these places by the Government of Israel. On a practical level, any authority that the Palestinian Authority might have over the Arab population of Hebron and its immediate regions has been given to it by the State of Israel, with respect to civil laws and administration, and must still coordinate with Israel over security matters. This means that the State of Israel is still an active player in everything that concerns life in Hebron. Land Administration of this region is still largely in the sole hands and responsibility of the Israeli Government, under the “Custodian of Absentee Property & Israel Land Authority of Judea and Samaria,” an office attached to the Israeli Ministry of Defense/Civil Administration, and which bases its jurisdiction on the "Absentee Property – Judea and Samaria Act- 59/1967." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The Israeli presence there is at gunpoint, the accords are regulated by a military government, and it is foreign territory, even for Israel, as well as international law. Insisting this can be tweaked to imply there is some point in implying it is a site in Israel or an Israeli national heritage site is pointless. There is no de facto or de jure annexation, and even if there had been, it would have no standing legally, except to make the purging of from quarter of 30,000 Palestinians to make way for 600 to 800 settlers, look procedurally correct, though it requires 1,200 soldiers to be maintain the status quo by making the lives of every Palestinian in their vicinity impossible. David. Your point of view is understood. Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Leaving aside "international law" (which is disputed by the Israeli Government), Israelis do not, repeat, do not view the territory as "foreign" to them. In fact, Israels, who were previously called "Palestinians" before 1948, lived in all these regions. There was also a large Jewish community in Hebron before the massacre of Jews in 1929. Israel regulates these territories based on its security needs. Remember, the history of hostility between Jews and Arabs is a long history, beginning with Sarah and Hagar, her Egyptian bondmaid, who became the mother of the Arab nation. "De facto", by the way, is never an outward "legal declaration." As for the population of Jews and Arabs living in this country Palestine/Israel/Judea/Canaan/the Holy Land, the numbers are almost the same, with perhaps a slight Jewish advantage. The problem is not so much in the numbers as it is in a people who, supposedly, do not wish to be governed by Jews, yet disdain being governed by a Hamas-style government as well. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
David. I think all editors here, from whatever perspective, are absolutely familiar with even the finicky details of Israeli policy, there is no need to repeat them. All that does is lead to foruming that solves no editing issue. I.e. ' Israel regulates these territories based on its security needs.' Well, that's one perspective, not shared by Rabin, when he decided Hebron was a security burden, but caved into to settler pressure and the threat from Netanyahu 20 years ago, and in any case, is untrue. Israeli policies are under an signed obligation to 'regulate the territories' with due and minute regard to the security, protection of rights, and property of the occupied population. It doesn't do this, which proves that security is understood as 'our' safety, not their rights. This is all I have to say. I won't be reading any further comments, since the point of the thread is crystal clear.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that Jews have no right to settle in and around Hebron?Davidbena (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
In any case, read Al-Shuhada StreetNishidani (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Rather than repeat the atrocities committed by both sides, i.e. politicise the situation, let us concentrate on the issue at hand here. We still have yet to decide what to do with the "Categorisation," that is, with respect to the status of World Heritage Site "in Israel" or "in Palestine." Moreover, we are all cautioned against infringing upon Wikipedia's stated policy of WP:SOAPBOX, and using Wikipedia for "opinion pieces," or advocating our own political agenda. This should not be our objective.Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is starting to turn into WP:IDHT, the strong consensus in the multiple foums this discussion/proposal has been posted to seems to be to keep the World Heritage Sites in Palestine category. Seraphim System (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While the encyclopedia can address Israelis' views on Hebron (perhaps by amplifying those described at Judea and Samaria Area]]), those views do not define the categorization scheme used in "by country" categories on Wikipedia. The international community regards the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as territories occupied by Israel. (see references here: West Bank, International law and Israeli settlements ) Since the international community understands Israel as not including Hebron, so does the category scheme. This is all doubly true in this case since the category in question concerns a designation made by an organ of the United Nations. There's really nothing more to discuss.--Carwil (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is not simply related to "content dispute," but involves more how we see and understand Wikipedia's policy with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If we're not careful, we can become abettors to the "crime," so-to-speak. I am alleging here what to me seems to be a blatant "misconduct" by co-editors wishing to advocate their own political agenda, infringing upon the guidelines set in WP:SOAPBOX, insofar that they are pushing a "pro-Palestinian" ("anti-Israel") agenda, hoping to expunge the fact that the Israeli Government controls the administration of the "West Bank", and to highlight their displeasure over Israel's hold of this territory (mind you, disputed territory, based on Disputed legality of Israeli settlements). The same co-editors have insisted on using the word "Palestine" with regard to the West Bank (in the sense of a political entity, and in spite of the fact that there is no sovereign "State of Palestine"), when they should have rather steered clear from this contentious issue and used the word "West Bank" instead, just as it is outlined specifically in Wikipedia's policy, described under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). There's no need for us, as impartial editors, to politicize this issue, hoping to influence others by calling the region by a different name. The category that now reads "World Heritage Sites in Palestine" ought to be changed to read "World Heritage Sites in the West Bank." If, however, the word "Palestine" is used here apolitically, then let us also add the category "World Heritage Sites in Israel." Two categories for this page.Davidbena (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
David. Just drop it. The above looks 'suicidal' in so far as you are making allegations about 'editor conduct' in what is a simple content dispute, in which you are a voice of 1 against many. A voice in the wilderness should not shout that anyone else speaking up is soapboxing. This is not a conspiracy of editors to push a Palestinian POV. The arguments should be addressed, not the assumed POV of editors.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Being neutral requires of you and I (who are on opposite polar ends) to stand-back and let others judge the merits of our proposals. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Being neutral also entails for Wikipedia accepting what majority of one's colleagues state as determinating for the article. Count the comments, and draw a conclusion. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Consensus defined, "Consensus is often confused for the attainment of a specific percentage of votes in support of something. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not based on votes, but on consensus as defined above. Therefore, consensus constitutes not an inflexible number, but a range of criteria and factors which can mold to every one of the discussions on Wikipedia."---Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not quite sensible to quote simple policy to editors with more than a decade of editing. It is wise to count heads. If it is 4/3 you may have a point. If there is a notable majority who have reasoned (rather than merely voting) then you have consensus. And the consensus above is for exclusion.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
If you feel the policy is unfair, you can submit a request to change it. Think of it this way: If 10 editors decide to act contrary to Wikipedia's stated policy, would their numbers make their action binding? Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

David, everybody here acknowledges that Israel controls the entirety of the Palestinian territories, and that control is called military occupation. You have been trying to impose this fringe view that these territories are actually in Israel, when even Israel does not take that position. You have done this in page after page after page. In each place there is a clear consensus that this fringe view is in fact a fringe view. This place is not in Israel. You are free to believe otherwise, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to take your misinformation and propagate it. nableezy - 16:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nableezy, I no longer insist that we use "Israel" (a term understood here by most as a geopolitical term). My objection is that we change "Palestine" in the category "World Heritage Sites in Palestine", and write instead "World Heritage Sites in the West Bank." The use of the word "Palestine" is also a grey political area, since as yet there is no sovereign State by that name. "West Bank" is better, in this case, since it accurately represents Hebron and the Cave of the Patriarchs, and since it describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan before 1967.Davidbena (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
After days of back and forth about how Palestine and Israel are "historical" terms and actually "interchangeable" now you want to use "West Bank"? This is a clear indication of the WP:ADVOCACY underlying these proposals, and now also WP:IDHT, including making minor revisions to the proposal that are unlikely to be accepted to prolong the discussion for no apparent reason other then to WP:SOAPBOX, even though the community consensus is clear and unlikely to change at this point - most participating editors have supported the WP:NPOV position that we must use UNESCO's designation for a UNESCO World Heritage Site (not "Israel", not "West Bank"...) Seraphim System (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Initially, I wanted to use "Israel" apolitically, but I came across staunch opposition. Others felt that it was a geopolitical word. So, I did not insist on pressing my POV. However, there are two sides to every coin. One of the roles of administrators is to decide which version of an article is more NPOV. Editors can also do that by working together and finding consensus or at least compromise. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
"Decide which version of an article is more NPOV?" You have been editing since 2013 so I think you can be expected to understand our basic policies better then this by now (including not removing other editors comments from talk to resolve an edit conflict). I know there is a lot to learn, but continuing to insist that you are defending the truth against the community's consensus usually results in sanctions. The only place where consensus can be ignored entirely is arbitration, and even there it is customary to take community input into consideration. Seraphim System (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
If any edit was accidentally erased because of an Edit Conflict, that was unintentional. Let's not get personal here. It is the view of this editor that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) warrants our use of "West Bank" instead of "Palestine."Davidbena (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you should take it personally, but several editors (not only me) have asked you to drop this. I will point out that the naming conventions require the use of common sense (this is stated on the page) - when we are talking about the designation of an organization like UNESCO it would not be appropriate to change it, and I don't think this is what was intended when the guidelines were written. Nor do I think it should be necessary to change them to say this ("except where it is an official designation, etc.") but this is possible. The guidelines were written in 2009 so they are out of date at this point anyway, with regards to Palestine's member state status in the United Nations. As with the current qualifiers for Judea and Samaria, another round of discussion on the use of "Palestine" might be necessary to update the naming convention. But in this case, the World Heritage Sites designation is enough of a qualifier here, which is I think the point that multiple editors who have commented on this discussion have been trying to get across. I don't see the point in wasting community time on a very prolonged discussion, if common sense and informal discussion can resolve the problem. Seraphim System (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)