Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs

Bias by omission in the 3rd paragraph

The 3rd intro paragraph mentions the 1994 CotP massacre, which ofc is reasonable to do.

But: Since that gets a mention there, why doesn't also the 1980 massacre of 6 Jewish worshipers (17 wounded) receive one?

-- 84.188.166.3 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, for one, the COTP Massacre had over 150 casualties and was a major international incident, which, completely irrespective of any ethical debate and purely in terms of WP:N, in comparison to sparse attacks which only once resulted in actual fatalities, is more notable. That said, I agree it probably wouldn't hurt to skim the major incidents prior, so I've added brief statements. Zhomron (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There is another difference: The 1994 event occurred at the Cave of the Patriachs (the topic of this article) whereas the 1980 event did not. It isn't clear to me that "returning from prayers at the tomb" is sufficient to justify inclusion at all. There is no suggestion that the tomb played a role in the event. It certainly belongs in other articles on the Jewish settlement in Hebron. Zero^talk 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the location was close to Beit Hadassah, not close to the tomb. Zero^talk 01:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Zhomron (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"second-holiest site in Judaism"

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)

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)

@GordonGlottal There are actually several sources for the bit about being second holiest. Also notice that the citations for Islam are also to non religious references. The methodology of Wikipedia is to use reliable secondary sources that interpret the text, rather than the interpretations of editors themselves (which is referred to as Original Research). The best method would be to look through journals of Jewish studies to perhaps find an explanation or analysis of Judaism’s views on Holy Sites. Drsmoo (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

The status of Hebron as one of the four holy cities of Palestine is quite old. I wasn't able to find a statement specifically about the cave from before the 1970s, so it would be interesting to know where that idea comes from. Most interesting would be sources before 1967, since lots of places suddenly gained additional status when they came under Israeli control and this phenomenon is well documented. Zero^talk 00:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

The sources cited for the site being the fourth holiest in Islam are the same which state it is the second holiest in Judaism, why include the former claim but not the latter? Anyhow, after doing a bit of a search I've found this reference from 1895 ranking Hebron second among the four holiest cities, though references to this status (or to any "second holiest site" in Judaism for that matter) are sporadic until this document from 1972 (I can't find the aforementioned 1971 Kahane document, only from 1973). The earliest reference to Hebron as the fourth holiest city in Islam is from 1979, and until then the vast majority of references name Damascus as the fourth holiest city. --Gsueso2 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

I posted the wrong link, the search term should be "Hebron" and not "Institute" --Gsueso2 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

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)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Word order in first sentence

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)

Leading phrasing in first paragraph

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)

Bordeaux

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)

Thanks. Fixed. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Mention on the historicity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

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)