Talk:Old City of Hebron

"Denying the city's Jewish character"
you have provided a couple of non-specialist sources which make the claim that UNESCO "denied the city's Jewish character". Neither of these sources explain the rationale for the claim nor provide their own citations. Can you explain what you think they mean? The nomination text is there for all of us to see.

It strikes me that these claims are WP:FRINGE at best, as it contradicts what we can all see with our own eyes. We are allowed to rely on what we can see right in front of us.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would go a step further, I pointed out that one of these sources was being misrepresented by him and he not only reverted my removal on those grounds he ignored the point altogether (claiming that footnotes are OK and breaching BRD) and continued to misrepresent the source until you fixed it for him. Strikes me that this is at the very least, unhelpful editing on his part. You might describe the author of this "work" as an antisemitism expert, Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld is 82, founding director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism at Indiana University and the publisher of all 5 of his books is Indiana University Press the material being rearranged scholarly essays edited by him. In my opinion, this does not qualify as an RS for the subject matter here.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this nonsense talking point is an extrapolation of Netanyahu's claim that "This time they decided that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is a Palestinian site, meaning not Jewish". This is absurd, as Palestinian nationalism has always considered Judaism as part of the fabric of the country (their beef being with political Zionism). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The truth of the matter is that the US and Israel were anti the listing before there was ever a resolution to complain about and the not paying their dues/leaving UNESCO in high dudgeon and now the after the fact complaining is just one more part of the pattern of US/Israel/Palestine relations ever since UNESCO accepted Palestine as a State party. In fact I think what we ought to do here is try to find sources that present this truth.Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a small section which gives a short overview of the politics; note it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with US/Israel objections to Palestinian statehood. The post fact posturing about denying Jewish links and all that is just a cover for the diplomatic reality.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good source with some of the longer history. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all bs; Palestine joined some other UN organizations like UNCTAD and US is still funding them. I suppose the problem they have is that since the UNESCO thing, there was 67/19 so Palestine IS a state.Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

1990 and 1994 laws
something is confusing here. The two laws are shown here: Yet the 1994 law used the exact same text from  in 1989. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I have found it shoehorned in at, , and finally . Onceinawhile (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I need to check and make sure it was the 94 bill that was used as the basis (the source says "1990s" which could be both or either)Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the last one was enacted in 1994, but it originated in 1989 at the same time as the 1990 law. If you look at HR3743 from 1989-1990 congress above, which became law, it includes the exact text of the 1994 law. I think its position in the law - perhaps the enforcement around it - is what changed over time. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is confirmed here:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, sources refer to both laws having been applied (CRS report), the differences between the two are more than the obvious, the first one applies to some subset of UN organizations and the second one instead refers to affiliates of the UN. Subsequently there have been arguments back and forth (unresolved till now) about the precise applicability of the second one to the case of Palestine (the first is in some respects redundant now). I think it's now a case of the "the horse has bolted" (Palestine has joined umpteen international orgs 2014 through 18) and the statehood question is going to get a test at the ICC shortly (and possibly another at the ICJ at some point).Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What I have worked to establish clearly is that these laws were directed at Palestine, even though one of them doesn’t mention it. And to give readers the ability to find out how these absurd laws came about should they be interested. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Orly Noy
Who is Orly Noy? what expertise she have to have her opinion to be WP:DUE?--Shrike (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Secondary attribution + 2 primary verifications = DUE (I'm sure you looked it up for yourself but I'll provide it anyway Orly Noy  Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again please explain why her opinion is important.And why her blog is WP:due? Shrike (talk)


 * I have explained why it is DUE (it's at least as DUE as that ascribed to Netanyahu which is contradicted by her and her view is confirmed by two primary sources whereas that of Netanyahu is merely an assertion so I have tagged that for undue weight).Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

TIPH
Where does it say that it was expelled because it has issued the report? --Shrike (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * it says "after", not "because". I assume you are implying it is synth, so to clarify, I have added another ref and separated the run on sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

US and UNESCO
This material belongs in the UNESCO article, but has no direct relationship to the Old City of Hebron, or to the nomination of the latter to UNESCO. It does not belong in this article. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As part of the dyk process, Shrike complained about there being no reference to the "controversy" which apparently means the US/Israeli complaining about the vote etc etc. So this all became necessary to explain the US and Israeli opposition followed by their exit stage left. Now it is in there and there is no dyk to fret about, I see no reason to disturb the status quo.Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The controversy is dealt with in the section, w/o this paragraph about the US. It details the Israeli objection, its refusal to allow UNESCO members in, etc.. There's no need to mention the US funding decision with regards to UNESCO, which has nothing to do with this article.  JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The US funding decision has everything to do with the US/Israeli objections which in effect are just objections to Palestine in and of itself and which is why the funding was cut in the first place. The Hebron listing is just a continuation of the same thing. And the pair of them leaving in a huff is also the same thing. It is all of a piece, a connected whole.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this level of detail is needed here. Feel free to start a RfC if you want this content included.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is already included (status quo) and your view about the LoD is not a good reason for removing properly sourced material. Of course, you could start an RFC asking whether it should stay.Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is WP:ONUS. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If the material was just added, fine but it has been there for a while and under dyk scrutiny without any complaint and you still need a good reason to remove properly sourced material even if that was not the case.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This information has been in there for a long time and consensus is required to change that. I think it could benefit from some copy editing though. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   16:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Mamluk vs Ottoman
We have two conflicting sources on whether the city is mostly Mamluk or mostly Ottoman:

Anita Vitullo, a freelance writer, published in 2003 in the Journal of Palestine Studies, writes that "The majority of the buildings are Ottoman-era from the eighteenth century along with some half dozen Mamluk structures."

The 2017 UNESCO nomination document, written by Alaa ShahinHebron's City Planner and Sandrine Bert Geithan Independent archaeologist, peer reviewed by Professor Nazmi Al Jubeh and Giovanni Fontana Antonelli, says: "Today, the historic town centre is dominated by the Mamluk architecture style built between 1250 and 1517. However, the Ottoman Period (1517-1917) brought numerous architectural additions... Mamluk architecture is predominant in Hebron/Al-Khalil’s historic centre... Most of the public and religious buildings that are still intact date back to this period... During the Ottoman Period, the development of the town spread to the peripheral areas, which were then unoccupied. In the old neighourhoods, upper level extensions were added to the preexisting residential buildings. Few new public or religious buildings were erected; instead the Mamluk monuments were maintained and restored."

These seem to contradict each other. The UNESCO nomination document does mention on page 148 The Conference of Historic and Architectural Heritage of Hebron/Al-Khalil in Paris in 2011, stating that "Bringing together a panel of international experts, this meeting aims at going further in the historic information and analysis about the Mamluk inheritance in the Arab cities and in Hebron/ Al-Khalil in particular." It may be that research came out of this conference, which would explain the changed emphasis. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See if I can find out anything about that, meanwhile here is some stuff perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is written in 1994, you could call her an expert of some sort, I would say."Much of the Mamluk town survives: many of the buildings mentioned by the fifteenth-century traveler Mujir al-Din in his book on the people of Hebron were catalogued in 1987. There are also significant buildings from the Ottoman period (1517-1917), as well as some of mixed Mamluk and Ottoman ancestry."The Old City of Hebron Can It be Saved? Patricia Sellick DOI: 10.2307/2538213 Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence of article
There is something seriously wrong with the second sentence of the article. I have no idea what it is meant to say, or I would fix it myself.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks - i'd be grateful for any ideas of how to simplify it. It is supposed to say that:
 * Hebron is thought by archaeologists to have originally started elsewhere, at Tel Rumeida, which is not within today's Old City. That was in "biblical times" i.e. pre-Greek.
 * Human settlement began in today's Old City location in Greek or Roman times
 * Today's Old City became the center of overall Hebron in the Abbasid times
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have largely done the rewrite in your answer. Doing a bit of cut and paste from the above and the article, I get the following:


 * The Old City of Hebron (البلدة القديمة الخليل) is the historic city centre of Hebron in the West Bank. The Hebron of antiquity is thought by archaeologists to have originally started elsewhere, at Tel Rumeida, which is X miles/kilometres outside today's Old City. This earlier settlement is thought to have started in X [insert approx date here], before the establishment of the cities of bronze age Greece [have I got this right?]. Today's Old City was settled in Greek or Roman times (circa [put date range in - may need to define only with which centuries]). It became the center of the overall Hebron site during the Abbasid Caliphate. [another approximate date needed, as previously]


 * It is recognized as a World Heritage Site.


 * Not sure if I have got the facts right, but chopping the facts down into smaller chunks seems to do something. I am sure what I am suggesting could be improved, anyway.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you - this is excellent. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to this lead only if a Jewish connection were added as Hebron is one of holiest city in Judaism --Shrike (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to find out when, and on what evidence, it was decided that biblical Hebron was on Tel Rumeida only. It is odd, because the Old City itself has never been excavated. When Hammond excavated Tel Rumeida in the 1960s, there was a ban on any excavation within 1km of the Cave of the Patriarchs.

I have looked in a few tourist books: p98 of this 1942 tourist book says "The ancient city was situated on the hill of Rumeida, to the south-west, around the ruined Mosque of Deir el Arba'in". Baedeker 1876: "The modern Hebron lies in the narrow part of a valley descending from the N.W.; and, unless it be assumed that the ancient city was situated higher up on the slope to the K., it was one of the few towns of Palestine that did not stand on a hill. The hill on the S.W. side rises about 3000 ft. above the sea-level.", whereas Baedeker 1894: "Ancient Hebron lay to the W., opposite the modern town, on the olive-covered hill Rumeideh, N.W. of the Quarantine. On this hill are ruins of old cyclopean walls and modern buildings called Der el- Arba in, ‘the monastery of the forty’ (martyrs): within the ruins is the tomb of Jesse (Isai), David’s father. At the E. foot of the hill is the deep spring of Sarah, Ain Jedideh. Modern Hebron lies in the narrow part of a valley descending from the N.W. (3018 ft. above the sea-level) and, unless it be assumed that the ancient city extended further along the hill to the E., is one of the few towns of Palestine that are not built on a hill."

Important scholarly sources I have found so far: Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Discovering Hebron: The City of the Patriarchs Slowly Yields Its Secrets, BAR 31:05, Sep-Oct 2005.
 * Philip C. Hammond, David's First City - The Excavation of Biblical Hebron, 1964: PrincSemB 58,2 (1965) 19-28

OK, I think I have (part of) the answer. In Biblical Researches in Palestine, Robinson writes: "Thus far there is nothing to excite a doubt as to the identity of the site of the ancient and modern city. Arculfus near the close of the seventh century, found the place without walls, exhibiting only the vestiges of an ancient desolated city; although a multitude of people yet lived there in miserable dwellings scattered in the valley, partly within and partly without the ruins of the former walls. Yet Benjamin of Tudela, after A. D. 1660 [presumed typo for 1160], affirms, that the ancient city was situated on a mountain, and was then desolate and deserted; the city of that day being in the valley. Brocardus, a century later, repeats this account, with more particulars; according to him, the ancient city was on the hill north of the slope on which we encamped, three bow-shots west of north from the modern town, where nothing was then visible except large ruins. This story is copied by writers of the following centuries; and the idea seems to have become current, that the ancient city lay upon the hill. Yet none of the travellers of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, speak of any ruins there, on their own knowledge. We were not aware of this old report at the time of our visit; and therefore did not examine the hill in question. My companion has since informed me, that according to his impression, the site of a former village was spoken of on that hill, similar to several others in the neighbourhood of Hebron; but with the remark that there were no remains there of importance. Had we then known the circumstances above related, we should certainly have gone upon the hill, and ascertained the facts for ourselves. The later researches of friends show conclusively, that there is nothing on that hill to counterbalance the mention of 'the valley of Hebron' in the book of Genesis, and the strong evidence of the ancient pools."

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Another from the PEF Survey of Palestine:

The ancient Jewish cemetery on the north side of the hill, called er Rumeidy, west of the town, is interesting. It contains at least 500 tombs, each covered with a stone five or six feet long. This cemetery is now disused, and appears to be very ancient. The curious tradition of the Mugharet edh Dhukkaah is noted in Section C.

It seems to have been supposed from an early period that ancient Hebron was not on the site of modern Hebron. The 'Onomasticon' makes the place near Drys (er Rameh). The Itin. Hierosol. gives this distance as 2 Roman miles. Sta. Paula (385 a.d.) visits the tombs of the Patriarchs, the oak, and then ' ascends ' to Hebron. Theodorus (in sixth century) finds the oak 4 Roman miles from the Spelunca Duplex, or cavern of the Patriarchs, and this cavern 2 miles from Hebron. Arculphus (700 A.D.) found the place in ruins, and west of the tombs of the Patriarchs. Ssewulf (1102 a.d.) gives the same account, the tombs being in a strong castle and the town in ruins. Benjamin of Tudela (i 163 a.d.) calls this castle St. Abraham, and speaks of the old city as on a hill and in ruins. Marino Sanuto (132 1 a.d.) places the old Hebron north of the cavern of Adam ('Ain el Judeideh), and north-west of Ebron Nova, in which he places the Spelunca Duplex. He also speaks of it as 'ad dextram Mambre.

The Oak or Terebinth of Abraham has been shown in two different sites. It seems probable, though not certain, that the present site is that shown from the twelfth century down.

So both Robinson and the PEF were conscious of the historical commentary that the original city was on a hill, but neither concluded that it was. That must have happened in the 1880s or 1890s.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Rabbi Jacob, The Messenger of Rabbi Jechiel of Paris (1238-1244): On the road-side there is Halhul, and another Saints' Cave, and in Hebron is the cave of Machpelah, where the Patriarchs are buried. Modern Hebron is near the cave ; ancient Hebron is at the top of the hill, where there are Jewish graves, and on one side there is a cave where Jesse is buried, but some say Joab, and in Hebron is also the grave of Abner, the son of Ner. (Adler, Jewish Travellers in the Middle Ages, p120) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000  (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Franciscus Quaresmius: "Leaving the church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, and directing one's step towards Hebron as far as a stone's throw, to the right of the church is shown a beautiful terebinth tree... The terebinth is on the top of the next to the place where old Hebron was built" (Pringle, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom, p.203)

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A David Ben-Shlomo talks about the various excavations (including his own, re Tel Hebron archaeological park refers, ugh) https://www.academia.edu/30600076/Tel_Hebron_during_the_Late_Roman_Early_Byzantine_Period and there is some material in Sharon as well.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)