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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
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
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.
"however residents are not allowed to cultivate any farming land that was confiscated by Israel" - are they usually allowed to cultivate land confiscated? Also, the citations on confiscations etc. should come from the UN or some neutral party due to their controversial nature. TewfikTalk06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to all maps I have ever looked at, both physical and online, Hizme is located in Area B and not Area C. The 'source' provided in the article seems to be highly biased and probably ridiculously inaccurate. Are there any other sources for this? -- Ynhockey(Talk)20:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in the first paragraph that Hizma is "cut off from the West Bank by settlements" is unsourced, and apparently false. A quick look at Google Maps shows that a left turn onto Route 437 out of Hizma leads to a number of West Bank villages, without the need to pass through any Jewish settlements. Is anybody else in favor of limiting the article to statements that are true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelgale (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presently in the article: "During the First Temple period, Hizma was a village of priests in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The village was known for the manufacture of stone vessels for use in the temple. Remains of workshops for the manufacture of these vessels have been found in caves around Hizma." referenced to Jerusalem neighborhoods, Beit Hanina - Hizma,
The problem is that I cannot find anything about this anywhere else, not in Dauphin (though I do not have all the sources Dauphin mentions. I am tempted to remove it. Comments? (Dauphin mainly seem to quote Guerin) Huldra (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This type of web site is not reliable; it is mostly concerned with emphasising Jewish connections and not with academic neutrality. I can identify where the information is coming from. The stuff about the tribe of Benjamin comes from an identification with (Beth) Azmaveth, which was accepted by Albright and others, but more recently denied by Gibson for lack of archaeological remains from the necessary time period. The manufacture of stoneware is on more solid ground, though the time period is late second temple and there is no connection to the temple itself. I'll add stuff. Zerotalk05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
