Talk:Hebron/Archive 1

message: I did quite a lot to this page, including expanding the 1929 account and the post-1967 Jewish settlement account.  I also fixed some of the English in the other parts.  The main work remaining to be done is:
* More history including archeology (before 1800 BC)
* More population data over the ages 
* More history from the Arab viewpoint
I only removed one thing without rewriting it.  It was written that some of Levinger's followers had property taken from them or their families in 1929.  They might have said that, but the British legal system in 1929 would have made outright theft impossible.  Tenants may have been evicted and owners probably had to sell for bad prices, but no houses were simply taken.  Anyway I don't think this was relevant to Levinger's expedition so it doesn't matter.  Incidentally, I saw some of the pre-1929 Sephardic inhabitants of Hebron on TV who claimed that they tried to move back to Hebron in 1967 with Arab approval, but Levinger's group threatened them and forced them out.
-- zero 13:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

message: Some of these recent edits to break the main content and history of the page into smaller articles seem a lot like a sneaky form of vandalism, since they are major changes with no earlier discussion on the talk page and the main article does not link to these smaller branches.  Would someone like to comment, please?
:They are, and will be have been fixed. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some recent edits

message: :The land was originally purchased by Abraham so that he would have somwhere to bury his wife, Sarah. When the Israelites returned from their exile in Egypt they found that an Amorite City had been build upon it. The Gibeonites of Gibeon, a city that had belonged in the Amorite League made a treaty with the Israelites, therefore the Amorites decided to destroy Gibeon as a lesson to other cities. The rulers of Gibeon went to the Israeli general Joshua and asked for him to destroy the Amorite armies which he did. Then he captured all the Amorite cities including Hebron.
::The first sentence is not even supported by Genesis and the correct version is already stated later.  The rest is the Bible story and does not belong in the History section since it is much earlier than anything supported by archaeology.  It could be included in a Hebron in the Bible section if someone wants to write it.  The History section needs a large amount of work as so far there is almost nothing.  --Zero 14:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa...vitriolic.  The policy here is neutral point of view, so there can never be a bias for nor against any side of a any conflict. - Gilgamesh 05:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Section

message: Guy, as I said on your talk page, the other picture is better.  Why don't you upload the other picture to a more neutral name?  I suggest "Cave of Patriarchs-Ibrahimi mosque.jpg". Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosque picture 

message: What are the current disputes about article content, if any? Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current disputes - April 6/05 

message: I quote from an excised section: "The facade and minarets of the structure built over the Cave of the Patriarchs by King Herod.]]"
I'm not sure why this is a POV sentence that needs to be reverted.  I suppose it might say: "the facade and minarets of the mosque built over the Cave of the Patriarchs was originally built by King Herod," if that is historically accurate.  Am I missing something?  Nobody is disputing, for example, that the Sultan Ahmed Mosque was originally built as a church... --Leifern 21:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
I'm also not sure why it was POV.  The Herod structure was not a mosque---that came later.  Elizmr 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave of the Patriarchs (and Matriarchs) 

message: the current year is 2005. how do you know the population of 2006 and 2007? (if it is just a prophecy please note it)
The second population figure for 1997, and all the later projections, are for the Hebron Governate, not Hebron city.  That's why the numbers are much bigger.  The PCBS page doesn't like my browser, someone else please see if there are Hebron city figures in there.  --Zero 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  population 

message: Concerning the disputed sentence:  Some of the places occupied by the Jewish settlers in Hebron are places where Jews lived for a century or so prior to 1929, and for a longer time in some very few cases.  Most of the places had been Arab occupied for as long as anyone knows.  Anon 209's version is propaganda and can't be allowed.  --Zero 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in Hebron 

message: The city was the place where in 1929 jews were cleansed from by a massacre.
Nothing about it in this article ? It was a major event which is used by extrimists settlers as justification for what they now do. Zeq 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Ethnic cleansing ? 

message: Hi to everyone interested in Hebron.  As someone new to Wikipedia, I have a reaction to this encyclopdia entry.  
Clearly, as the burial place of Abraham/Ibrahim father to both Ismael and Issac (english alphabetical order for both), Hebron can be considered "ground zero" of one of the world's most long lasting and polarized conflicts.  In this Wiki-cosm, I have noticed that the edit history of this page is remarkable for people doing edits to have the page express one "version" or another of what they consider to be the correct history of the place.  Clearly, both versions are true but neither can be completely true. Neither version is going to go away by pressing "save page", at least not for long.  
It might serve everyone better, and serve as a reputable source of information better, if the contraversy was presented explicity as contraversy rather than implicity by the use of charged language (ie--"youth" vs. "militants") in an ostensibly NPOV account.  In this way, multiple versions could be expressed with headings like "Palestinian/Arab World/Muslim point(s) of view" "Israeli/Jewish/pro-Settlement/anti-Settlement point(s) of view", and no final judgement was made about which version is more correct at the end of the day.  People with really polarized opinions could work on their own sections and limit edits to other ones.  Readers would come away with a more complete understanding.  I've noticed this done on other pages.  
What do people think?  Could we end the "edit war"?  Can't we all just get along????  elizmr 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - welcome to Wikipedia. I am not sure where you see an 'edit war' in this article. There is constant editing by an anonymous person who keeps deleting a certain passage and making another passage POV by taking out NPOV wording. This is generally considered vandalism, and not edit warring. The said vandal has almost never discussed his/her edits, but just keeps re-imposing objectionable edits that are usually reverted by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors. The anonymous person's edits are reverted because they are considered vandalism (deleting sourced neutral material) and not conforming to NPOV. Of course, anybody is welcome to add to this article constructively, and other points of view should be welcome as long as they are presented neutrally, and conform to Wikipedia policies. Questionable material can be discussed on this page. The aforementioned vandal has done none of these things, and it may be necessary to place this article under partial protection (against new users and anonymous editors) in order to limit this person's obsession with vandalizing the article. The "Palestinian youth" thing is apparently taken from the caption of whoever took the photograph; i.e. the photographer describes his/her photo that way. Ramallite (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been thinking that our new ability to protect articles against anon edits while allowing established editors to work as normal sounds like a good way to neutralize our persistent 67.72.*.* vandal.  We can't take the normal path of blocking him/her because the IP number varies and we can't block an IP range because it seems to be a public ISP.  What are your opinions?  --Zero 01:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should semiprotect. This is becoming rather triesome. El_C 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That comment by our 67.72.*.* vandal who was not logged in using the username he typed at the end. Likely identity fraud. --Zero 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's difficult because this malicious vandal uses multiple IPs from a range that perhaps some legitimate users are using.  We will investigate this. --Zero 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandals and fraudsters are not welcome here.  Go away.  --Zero 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, notwithstanding your persistent vandalism here, the fact that you fraudulently signed with somebody else's name is enough to get you banned. Ramallite (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you were truly concerned about privacy and posting in accord with Wikipedia rules you would get a proper userid. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so if I register and do what I gotta do, would my edits stick? In other words, what should I do in order to keep my edits from being reverted? Shelanu
Well you could start by searching the net or newspapers to see if you can counter the claim that was made about that anti-settler group. Right now we have several sources among others from a The Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, so it does seem like that group exist. You have to discredit those sources or argue that the inclusion in the article in irrelevant or POV. A good place to start is reading this: WP:NPOV. Or maybe instead of removing it you can find sources that support the settlers view and write more about that, but then you have to read this first: WP:V. A human 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So, once I find sources to counter the claim as well as sources that show my point of view, this will be sufficient? all this keeping in mind a NPOV. Once I do that and register, is there any other obstacles that would stand in my way? Shelanu
I would think not. But other editors (e.g. like myself) might not like all you do, then we can argue on these talk pages about that, instead of just reverting each others edits all the time. Take a look at the history of the Hebron page, and see how many contributed to this article, and all of them might have an opinion on the edits that happen here. So you might have to argue alot for some of the edits you want, most editors on Wikipedia have to do that for some of their edits. Alot of my edits get deleted too, thats just how it works. If you do it that way, maybe other editors will agree with you and help you argue your view or improve your edits in ways that support what you believe. Another thing you can do is to help wikipedia by improving articles about issues that are not as controversial, that will give you more respect I believe. I respect those editors who have done lots of work here a bit more than the people who just edit a couple of pages, even though they sometimes oppose my edits. That will also make you better at editing and increasing the chances of getting your edits accepted.  A human 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are the "anonymous wikignomes" you speak of? Articles can only be semi-protected if there's a fairly large amount of vandalism, see George W. Bush for example. This article actually doesn't get many edits at all. —Khoikhoi 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Hi everyone,  I moved the section on the cave to the lead paragraph for two reasons 1) it is such a centerpiece of the region historically and currently and 2) it broke up the chronological flow of the history section.  I hope no one minds.  elizmr 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave 

message: I've been reading and adding detail to the history section.  I'm wondering if the section on Jewish settlement should be moved to this section.  As it is, the section is a little choppy because that history is missing from the history section and is an important part of the story.  What would people think about relocating it up there?  elizmr 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Hi Ramalite--Sorry for the lack of citation.  As you know, I"m a relative newcomer to this article, and in general it doesn't have too many so I didn't go crazy adding them.  Let me know which aspect of the 1929 quote needs citation?  I got the info from the Jewish Encyclopedia about some of the Arabs shielding their neighbors or not acting.  If this is disputed, let me know.  I think it is widely accepted that the Arabs killed the Jews in Hebron after some unfortunate incitement from Jerusalem regarding supposed Jewish desecration of Arab holy places, but let me know if this is disputed and I'll pull out my history books.  Thanks for your correction on H1H2 (and not biting if I made a big mistake).  I wanted to get Oslo in there somewhere, and I had thought that the PA got "title" at least in theory to the whole of the territories after Oslo :=).  Take care, elizmr 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - no dispute that Arabs killed Jews - I don't know if any were killed by the British - but by all means bring whatever you have and add the citations (even on this page if you want), I'll be happy to put them in proper format for you. Hebron was supposed to go to the PA according to Oslo but that was never implemented until Clinton arm-twisted Bibi in '97 or '98 (I think '98). Ramallite (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1929 and H1, H2 etc

message: I read somewhere that he was mentally unstable, but you are quite right to take it out.  (but honestly, wouldn't one have to be mentally unstable to open fire on a group of people at prayer???) elizmr 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or blow one's self up in order to kill others? Yes! Ramallite (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  goldstein's mental status 

message: The baruch goldstein incident is mentioned twice, once in "history" and once in "jewish settlement".  This doesn't scan all that well.  elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Awhile back, someone kept changing the wording on the photo under the page from "youth" to "militants" or similar.  I asked about this and was told that the caption the page used was the caption that accompanied the orig photo.  If this is true, shouldn't it be changed back to that original caption at this point?  elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back and note that it has again morphed.  I don't have strong feelings about this, but think that if there is a wiki policy on captions we should be following it in an even and transparent way.  elizmr 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: The following entire section was deleted with the above edit summary:
"=== Jordanian rule ===  +  
- Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jordan took over the control of Hebron and the rest of the West Bank. During this time, Israelis were not allowed to enter the West Bank. In violation of the Armistice Agreement, the Jordanian authorities barred Jews from making pilgrimage to the Tomb of the Patriarchs or other holy sites in Hebron. During this time, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed, the Jewish cemetery was desecrated, and an animal pen was built on the ruins of the Abraham Avinu Synagogue.  " 
Care to explain?  Is it untrue that Jordon took control of Hebron?  Is it untrue that they did not allow Jews access to the tomb of their ancestors?  Is it irrelevant that they violated the armistace agreement?  Elizmr 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing "Jews" vs. "Israelis". Jordan and Israel were in a state of war, so just like Israelis couldn't go to places under Jordanian control, Jordanians could not come to places under Israeli control. Christian Jordanians, for example, were not allowed to go to Nazareth for pilgrimage. But if a Jewish American tourist was coming to Jordan for example, s/he would be able to travel in Jordan. The way this text is written is quite POV as if only one side is malicious, while the truth is that both countries were in a state of war. Now I'm no fan of Jordan, and will be the last to defend it in any way, but I still feel there ought to be some proper citation to allegations such as "the Jewish Quarter was destroyed" and especially also the part about an animal pen being built on the ruins of a synagogue. The Israelis destroyed a part of the Muslim area in the old city of Jerusalem when they captured it in 1967, so let's remember that we are talking about two states at war, and neither side can necessarily claim a moral superiority. Ramallite (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point and would like to work on better language and cites for this paragraph, however I'm not really getting your argument.   First, after the armistice agreement, Jordan and Israel were not at war anymore, right?  (altho no arab country actually recoginzed Israel's statehood or right to exist at that time).  When the armistice agreement was written, was there an understanding that Israeli Jews would not be able to go to Jewish holy places in Jordan like the cave and the wailing wall, but but Jews from outside of Israel would be able to travel to these places?  Elizmr 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of "pure junk text" 

message: Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, yet the "history" sections of this article barely mention Arabs except as people who did nasty things to Jews.  Although a stronger word could be applied, I'll just say that it isn't acceptable.  Even the existing Jewish history is very poor; it presents the story of the Jews of Hebron as a saga of endless suffering, which is simply not factual.  --Zerotalk 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero--why don't you add more Arab history to the section?  It would be interesting.  Elizmr 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for NPOV tag 

message: I posted a factuality dispute because I noticed, among other things, that it says that there are only 500 Jews in Hebron. I dispute this fact and want to know where the source is from. Other sources indicate that at least 7,500 Jews live within the environs of Hebron. Also, why exactly was the picture of the Cave of Machpela removed from the article? It is the most famous site in Hebron  and should headline the article as the main photograph instead of just propagandaish rock-throwing. Valley2city 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok first off, you can simply add a  tag to the 500 if you would like a source. Here's and Israeli source for starters. Secondly, I don't know who removed it but it would be better to have an image of the actual city, something that reflects it's...population which is predominately Arab. In regards to the picture of Palestinian boys, I thought it balanced the article out. When I first saw it we just had the picture of Israeli soldiers. I think the two images go together quite nicely, actually. Anyways, if you have ever been to Hebron or have pictures, I'd love to see them. I plan to go there someday. —Khoikhoi 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factuality Disputed 

message: Photos by Justin McIntosh, August 2004. The POV in the captions is not necessarily one that I hold, it's just that I didn't feel like changing them. (decided to just link) —Khoikhoi 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't you just link to it instead of planting all the pictures here (mostly with extremely biased and wrong captions) ? Amoruso 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of that, but it's easier to access here. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems distruptive, intrusive and not fitting for a discussion page. Amoruso 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I posted these images is for the exact reason in the heading, that they could be used in the article. How is this disruption? —Khoikhoi 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It disrupts the normal reading of text here - you can provide a link to the gallrey in the commons here too I think.. n'est pas ? Amoruso 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some images that could be added to the article 

message: the hebrew name is not only more ancient but it also sounds practically the same to the english name, so it doesn't make sense to put the arabic name first as opposed to Jericho for instance... even though that according to precedence should have been the hebrew name first too. Amoruso 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may sound the same but it's not. Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, you can add a paragraph about etymology, stating that the English name comes from the Hebrew name, but I see no reason why it should go first. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact I've decided to add it, and Almaqdisi has added information about the etymology of "الخليل". —Khoikhoi 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree of course. The name is Hebrew related and for the other reasons mentioned already - Hebrew history making it one of the 4 most important cities and the first city of David, it makes sense to put the original name first. But I won't revert unless further users join me on this. Amoruso 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your logic, but there isn't a Wikipedia policy that says these names have to be in chronological order. I think that showing the Arabic name first shows readers that Hebron today is mostly an Arab city. Note that the the Turkish word "İstanbul" comes from the Greek name for the city (or a Greek phrase), but we have the Turkish name first because today it's a mostly Turkish city (also because Turkish is the official language in Turkey). —Khoikhoi 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's a turkish word ! The greek word is : "Konstantinoúpoli" . In here we have an ENGLISH word that's not related to the ARABIC word. The fact that it's mostly Arab is true, but it's not under any political state at the moment which forces the residents to a specific name, and it's an historical town, biblical town as well. Amoruso 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Khalil" and "chaver" mean the same thing. Ramallite (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades - great, but why should we start with that? This is the city where David was anointed a couple of millennias before that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So therefore the names should be in chronological order? Shouldn't we have the Latin name at the Jerusalem article? (Hierosolyma) —Khoikhoi 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The chronological order of the ruling powers at a certain historical location seems only logical to me. Of course, if such powers make a long list (as in Jerusalem), we don't want to clog the intro with the names, translations, pronunciations, etc., and I would support separating such long list into a subarticle (see Names of Jerusalem) or a subsection. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: changed order of names

message: The Old City of Hebron has been taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers, intent on ridding the area of its indigenous Palestinian population. 
The grille of wires over the old city is littered with items that have been thrown down by Israeli settlers onto Palestinians walking below. Not as the article suggests, to stop Palestinians throwing things into settler homes. 
Also, the Israeli settlers are there illegally under international law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.101 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006.
:Interesting, but do you have any sources that say this? (I'm referring to your comment about the wires) If so, please make sure they're reliable and most importantly, provide them. Khoikhoi 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (no title) 

message: Doctors without Borders, The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), part of the World Council of Churches, and an organization called Global Ministries, all refute your claim that the nets are to protect Israelis. This was after a 5 minute google search, I could find many, many more sources if you'd like. It is common knowledge that the nets are to protect Palestinians, I've been to Hebron twice in the past 2 years and the nets in some portions are completely filled with garbage that could only have been put there from above (i.e. by the settlers). The sand bag is likely there to hold the nets in place so they cant be moved by either side. I am removing your photograph and the caption as it is not representative of the true situation in Hebron. You may put it back if you can find backing from a group at least as nonpartisan as doctors without borders. Wlf211 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC
:It would be interesting to hear more information about the massacaring of Jews in 1929 and 1936 which forced the cities Jewish population to flee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.229.203.189 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 November 2006.
::There is already a page on that subject, appropriately titled 1929 Hebron Massacre. It is linked to twice in the article, first in the history section under the heading British Mandate, and later on under the 1967 Controversy heading. the 1929 Massacre page is in depth and provides plenty of information, I imagine more information on the subject is not included in the Hebron article for this reason. Most (if not all) of the pieces of information in the Hebron article is not substantial enough to have its own article. I also dont understand why this comment was made under this heading and what, if anything, it had to do with the removal of the inaccurate photo caption. It is generally better and less confusing to put posts bringing up new issues be put under their own heading. Thanks.--Wlf211 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of inaccurate photo and caption of netting.

message: I sought to update the section and include some illustrative photos, the last section in particular was unclear and the mistake in the reference code made it seem very out of place so I combined the two section and added some clarifying information. I also put in information about the Stars of David above the doors (which is generally accepted as hard evidence of former Jewish residences), and included the section about the violence of extremist settlers and tried to show that the violence there is much worse than violence anywhere else in the OPT. Wlf211 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to Controversy: Jewish settlement after 1967

message: What was the basis for removing the NPOV tag? I see no discussion of it, and the edit gives no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I am reverting the edits made on the 18th by Amoruso because aside from one or two controversial sentences, the parts removed are well sourced and for the most part generally accepted. The portions about the netting are fact as well as the part about the 1997 letter sent by the 1929 Descendants. If you can prove that it is not this reason why the netting is there, and why there is garbage on the top of the nets (the settler side) in the photo then show me and you can take it down. I dont think there is any way you could disprove the 1997 letter the reporting comes from reputable newspapers. I am willing to make some compromises on the parts about settler brutality if you can find some sources that are contrary, but I think it is pretty much common knowledge that attacks by Palestinians are much more brutal in other cities like Nablus or Ramallah but attacks by settlers are far and away worse in Hebron than in any other part of the West Bank. I put this information in there because settler attacks are rare in areas of the West Bank besides Hebron so it is notable.--Wlf211 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Amoruso on 18 November

message: Why is it that all of this pictures included in this article show Israeli soldiers and other events related to the current conflict? Why is there not even a single picture of the tomb of Abraham, which is far more important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 (talk • contribs) .
::Note: above added by anon, but I think the article would benefit from these pix as wellElizmr 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very biased article 

message: Hey, I don't think we're mentioning BG enough in this article?  Could we mention him in the lead, every section, the "also see" section, the external links section, and the notable people section??????   Elizmr 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baruch Goldstein 

message: What is Hebron's contribution to the history of the Palestinian people? Psychomelodic  20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into the article after I saw your deletion. I saw many references to events that occurred in the city from the early 20th century (when both "Israeli" and "Palestinian" nationalism intensified) onwards, including riots, massacres, religious significance, settlements, etc. If you want to argue that it is not related to "Palestinian" history, it really isn't "Israeli" history either, but rather Jewish history (as well as Islamic history). But clearly both Israeli and Palestinian history categories belong. What is your reasoning? Ramallite (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, I'm on with removing History of Israel category because I find it insulting that such ancient city is assigned to 50~ years old country. :Category:Palestinian history is not better, if not worse. I think it is best to replace Cat:Palestinian history with Cat:History of Palestine and Cat:History of Israel with Cat:Jewish history. Psychomelodic  21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been an intense effort recently to remove categories with the word "Palestine" in them (via CfD) and replace them with "Palestinian". You also just explained why you don't like reference to Israel but still haven't explained your aversion to "Palestinian history" or at least refuted my reasons. In any case, as to your proposal, what say others? Ramallite (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History of Palestine, History of Levant, I don't care. History of Israel is for events in the history of the State of Israel and not Land of Israel. Psychomelodic  23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian history category? 

message: The original name is AL-Khalel and there is no doubt about that and the land is an arabic land and the people is an arabic people what ever the jewish may said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.84.18 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fact