Talk:Halhul

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

problematic content

A lot in this article is not sourced, or it is referred to sources which I am not sure are WP:RS.

Lexicon of Eretz Israel is based on what looks like a private web-site?

Major cleaning-up seems needed. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kotar.co.il is basically a Google Books kind of site in Hebrew. Whether or not the source qualifies as an RS or not depends on the book itself, same as how links to Google Books are evaluated.—Biosketch (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks Biosketch. Can you say anything about "Lexicon of Eretz Israel"? (I assume "Lixicon" is spelling error?), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can see for yourself by clicking the link and scrolling to page 4. The author of the book is Imanuel Hareuveni, a prolific expert on the history and geography of the land of Israel, and the Lexicon was published by Israel's Ministry of Education and the Center for Educational Tecnology.—Biosketch (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I´ll take your word for it. That just leaves the rest in the article..- Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 14th-century, Jews were living in Halhul."

This sentence is sourced to Fred Skolnik; Michael Berenbaum (2007). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Macmillan Reference USA in association with the Keter Pub. House. p. 273. ISBN 978-0-02-865936-7. Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Does anyone has access to it? The other "14th-century" reference to Jews in Halul have been based on the forged Chelo's itinerary. We should make sure that this is not another one. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy if Zero catches me out on this, but the reproduced version of that En.Judaica article mentions Chelo close to this context. Rather than waffle for ages (no info should be put in unless there is a verifiable source, reproduced on demand, in principle) I have rephrased the point till it can be clarified whether this comes from Chelo or not. There was WP:OR involved in using the citation from Kitto for Jewish pilgrimage for the medieval period. Wilson is Kitto's source and Wilson uses the presence tense, describing Jewish pilgrims visiting the place (as they often are attested as visiting nearby Hebron for that period).Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,but the label "ref name="AlexanderKitto1864"" was used in another place, too, so it should not be removed (unless you remove all references to it). Huldra (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Haste. Have I fucked up again? Can this be fixed without excessive strain on the bean?Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t worry, it was easy to fix (here); I actually greatly enjoy editing with you! ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can read EJ here. No source is given for the claim. I'm 99% certain that Chelo is indeed the real source though. As evidence, the article "Mapping the Yishuv Demographically, 634--1881" by Josi Ben-Artzi in Jewish History, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1987 which is an attempt to document every known Jewish settlement in Palestine during the stated period, with detailed maps, does not mention Halhul. Nor does the book Ben-Artzi published with Alex Carmel and Peter Schäfer a few years later with the same aim. Zero^talk 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

A map was deleted on the assertion that it had to relate to archeological evidence. I see no such requirement. The map relates to the text. Which relates to the history from the Bible. There is no requirement that it be based on archeological evidence. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Name

I wondering what people thought about the Hebrew name being included in the lead along with the Arabic, considering its Jewish history and the hebrew etymology of the name. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on your talk page, I am in favour of this because of the connection to Jewish history. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Halhul. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pilgrimage", yet again

And now people want to make pilgrimage to Halhul, based on a forged travel itinerary? link

This is garbage from the anon Elder of Ziyon blog. They mention "Rabbi Yitzchak Chelo", mentioned by Victor Guérin, talking about ancient Jewish pilgrimage to Halhul. Alas, that is the infamous Isaac Chelo travel itinerary; now commonly accepted to be a 19th century forgery by Eliakim Carmoly, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khirbet ed-Dawwara

To editor Huldra: Avi's "Byzantine-Islamic Transition", p253, says "Further south, at Khirbet ed-Dawwara (the modern town of Halhul), a different type of village has been excavated. The site, established as a farm in the Late Roman period, was converted in the fifth century into a monastery which was incorporated within the existing village. It was inhabited continuously until the end of the eighth century, when it was destroyed by an earthquake. An oil press was introduced into the monastery during its latest stage of settlement, and it is not clear if at this stage the site was still inhabited by Christians." I haven't been able to otherwise associate "Khirbet ed-Dawwara" with Halhul, or to find it on maps. There is a different Khirbet ed-Dawwara to the NE of Jerusalem. Any ideas? Zero^talk 12:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Zero0000: The source given was "Batz, S. and Sharukh, I. (2008)", ie ). ‘Khirbet ed-Dawwara (south)’, NEAEHL v. 1690-1; where NEAEHL is The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land

There (on pp 1690-1) they write that "Khirbet ed-Dawwara (South) is located on the crest of the Hebron Hills, about 2km east of Hạlhụl and 2km west of Shiuh,̣ on a hill rising 950m above sea level."

There is nothing there on SWP Map 21, but on the 1940s map (=12Hebron), there is a Kh ad Duweir, half way between Halhul and Ash-Shuyukh, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Haha, I thought "v" was "volume" with a missing volume number. Now I see it is "volume v", which alas I don't have. Unless we are going to have an article on that location, I think it can go in this article. Zero^talk 02:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could (should?) go both here, and in the Ash-Shuyukh article? Huldra (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilson

"John Wilson described it in 1847 as a place of Jewish pilgrimage."

Wilson just passed by the place, and quotes Cippi Hebraici, p. 32. But that page only mentions that Halhul (or Chalchul) is the burial place of Gad, nothing about Jewish pilgrimage. Which makes me wonder: did Wilson also get his info about "Jewish pilgrimage" from the Isaac Chelo-forgery by Eliakim Carmoly, published in the same year? Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: These fake itineraries do a lot of damage. It's also possible Carmoly copied the reference from an earlier source. It is worth looking at Guerin (Judee 3, p285- "Halhoul"). Guerin quotes only Carmoly about the tomb of Gad and reports that he cannot verify it and the tradition has no Biblical support. He suggests that the tradition had by then become extinct. Zero^talk 01:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, yes, if you go to archive.org, and search for Les chemins de Jérusalem in text content, it is referred to in both Biblical and Catholic encyclopedias, among many, many others.

But the Cippi Hebraici was published in 1662, and it is based on a manuscript from 1500-1600 (it mentiones buildings done by Suleiman the Magnificent). So the Gad-burial place theory was "alive" then. But I cannot see that any other writer in the late Ottoman period mentioning "Jewish pilgrimage"; only Wilson/Carmoly. And Wilson didn't even visit Halhul; just passed by. I suggest we change the above sentence to something about the Gad-burial-place, and mentions also Guerin saying it had no Biblical support, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]