Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs

message: We shouldn't be using an uncited, tangential reference a polisci book to reference a claim outside the expertise of the author. I have done my best to find a reliable source for this claim and there simply isn't one. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I figured out the original genesis of this claim -- Meir Kahane included it in two English-language books in the 1973 and 1974. Kahane was never a mainstream religious figure and is best known for hardline political views about Jewish sovereignty over the West Bank. It is deeply inappropriate to attribute his political justifications to "Judaism". GordonGlottal (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Not on the page, not whose focus or expertise is related to the claim, which is a basic requirement for sourcing. Obviously it would be bad to cite primary sources, but the Islamic part cites to secondary sources about religion -- that's what we'd need for your claim. I have looked extensively. As I said, this claim dates to a political treatise from 1973, not to any academic or otherwise reliable source. If you have a source, you're welcome to put it on the page. Until then, please remove your claim. Deliberately restoring claims you know other wiki editors object to without consensus is against policy. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Absolutely true -- "one of four holy cities" you could find back at least a couple centuries, though I don't know that it's ever been a widespread formulation. But there's no ranking. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo, congrats. Spent some time searching Google Books for "second holiest" through the centuries and decades, and the first use ever of "second holiest" relating to Judaism is a text by Meir Kahane from 1971. Before that, never had Hebron been referred to as "the second holiest" city, or the Cave of Patriarchs as "the second holiest" shrine, for Jews. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I didn't know anything about Islam's holy cities but a search seems to show that you're right, so I removed it. What does your 1972 document say? I can't preview it. The 1895 book is interesting but it doesn't seem connected, only refers to the city of Hebron and isn't enough by itself. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the wrong link, the search term should be "Hebron" and not "Institute" --Gsueso2 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "second-holiest site in Judaism" 

message: In this phrase:
 described the great jealousy with which the Muslims guard the sanctuary
Please change "guard" to "guarded", because this is speaking of events 160 years ago.  Obviously the control situation described here was long ago replaced by what's described in the "Israeli control" section. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2022 

message: situated 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Jerusalem in the heart of the Old City of Hebron in the West Bank
Is there some particular significance to the precise sequence of words here?  In general, we put a broader country location earlier in the introduction sentence, and while NPOV and the political issue makes it harder with this topic, we could still do better.
situated in the heart of the Old City of Hebron in the West Bank, 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Jerusalem
Wouldn't this be better?  The primary reason for mentioning Jerusalem is to give a vague sense of its location to readers who are poorly aware of the region's geography, but it's not critical.  The critical bit — where it's located, both specifically (Hebron) and regionally (West Bank) — ought to go before the vague-sense bit.  123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word order in first sentence 

message: Last sentence in first paragraph makes a note regarding the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Similar comments are made in other related entries. Concern is with the word "most". The language leads the reader to believe that a comprehensive survey of Historians was performed and the conclusion is that at least 51% of them hold this opinion.
Propose changing this word to "many," where the citations are some of those historians who support this view. 
Even better would be a brief section (or link) to a survey of academic views regarding the historicity of the patriarchs and the patriarchal narratives.   Trawls-nit (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading phrasing in first paragraph 

message: There is a spelling mistake in the mention of the "pilgrim of Bordeaux". Bordeaux is wrongly spelled "Bordaux". 1899Vic (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Fixed. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordeaux 

message: In the first paragraph, it references most historians dismiss as mythology. But the statement is subjectively untrue. The word most should be changed to some as this would be more accurate. Digimes (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024 

message: Including a sentence that alludes to the fact that most historians believe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob being mythological seems unnecessary, given that adherents of the Abrahamic faiths believe them not to be historical. 87.208.30.220 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention on the historicity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 

message: I am requesting that the statement made,”most historians believe the story of Abraham, Isaac, and and Jacob is mythological,” be remove from this page.  The statement is inaccurate conjecture based on someone’s opinion and personal religious beliefs. I hold a Masters in Divinity from Liberty University and have never heard a credible scholar argue the historical authenticity of the patriarchal accounts. 2601:582:8500:2370:59EB:AAA6:2680:1119 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The sentence is supported by 2 references. Please provide reliable sources for the change you want to be made. Your personal experiences are not reliable, see WP:OR. User:CanonNi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024