Talk:Hizma

untitled section
"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.  Tewfik Talk 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Area C
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)

Cut off from the West Bank
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)

First Temple period
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)


 * 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. Zerotalk 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks much better now, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)