Talk:1517 Hebron attacks

Latest comment: 10 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress

POV tag


As per 1517 Safed pogrom, there appears to be an authentic source underlying this, this article is spun to suggest that the motive was anti-semitism. From what i can see from the sources, there is no evidence to suggest this. If we are to solve the problem of POV, we need context here. For example, this was a period of broad upheaval in the region of Palestine - was this the only massacre in the region at the time, or were Muslim and Christian villages also the subject of massacres.

Also, the use of the word pogrom is inappropriate.Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources use the term pogrom. Which specific sentences in the article do you find to be POV? Please be explicit. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
As per my original post, my problem is the general context, which is trying to push a conclusion. Two examples of this are the phrase "against the Jews" and the word "pogrom" - as a sentence later in the article says, the suggestion that the massacre was solely aimed at Jews has not been established, so we shouldn't imply it.
Please show me the reputable sources that use the word pogrom. We'll need sources which are not discussing this in the context of Israeli / Palestine politics if we are to be confident that there is no inherent POV. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Huh? We'll need sources which are not discussing this in the context of Israeli / Palestine politics if we are to be confident that there is no inherent POV? What part of policy is that? All sources have "an inherent POV". Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The 1517 Hebron event has nothing to do with I-P politics. Nothing at all. So, if an author is talking about it in the context of modern day I-P politics, there is a good chance that author is trying to make a political point. As editors we are supposed to apply common sense. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Please explain which part of policy you're referring to, quoting the policy itself. Jayjg (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added a cite to a very high-quality reference, Spencer C. Tucker's The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Tucker is a historian of extremely reputable credentials, and his encyclopedia entry clearly calls the massacre a 'pogrom'. Please check the article, I provided a link in the reference I added to the article. For what it's worth, Tucker isn't Jewish so hopefully that will allay any concerns that he's writing with that kind of POV. Because this discussion has gotten stale, and I added the reference, and don't see any further POV concerns, I removed the POV tag. Zad68 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
It does not use the term "Hebron pogrom", and one source does not make WP:COMMONNAME. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Once, the source was provided to address the concerns you raised here in the thread: "the use of the word pogrom is inappropriate" and "Please show me the reputable sources that use the word pogrom". I have provided a reliable source--The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict--from a very well-respected academic historian who is neither Jewish nor Muslim, and is writing from an impartial, educational point of view, and not as an I-P partisan trying to make a case one way or the other. He described what happened as a 'pogrom.' Doesn't this exactly meet all the concerns you laid out? Let's at least first agree that the source added addresses your concerns "the use of the word pogrom is inappropriate" and "Please show me the reputable sources that use the word pogrom" before we talk about WP:COMMONNAME. Zad68 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Zad, firstly to say I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive posts - I think we will find a way through here. Let me try to answer in as thoughtful a way.

Firstly, that encyclopedia includes many errors (as most do). More importantly though, the encyclopedia is not as unbiased as you suggest. If you read it as a whole, it is trying to prove a point - that the Arab-Israeli conflict is "rooted in three millennia of conflict". Tucker even says this in his YouTube video. The Palestinian side of the story is the exact opposite - that everything was fine until the birth of political zionism. I am not suggesting one side is right or wrong, just that the encyclopedia's central thesis is not consistent with a balanced perspective. However, let's focus on the facts, as the above is just my interpretation.

The authors of this part of the book are not experts on pogroms, nor are they expert on 16th century warfare in the middle east. I think we should find some experts on these subjects and see if they use the phrase Hebron Pogrom. Or we can discuss commonname. Or we could do both.

Separately, I do feel very strongly that use of the word pogrom is inappropriate here. I just don't think it meets any reasonable criteria, since there is no evidence at all of any ethnic-related motive here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

(e/c) Thank you. I agree with you that Tucker's specialty is U.S. history since the Civil War, and not medieval middle-east history. However, I would not agree that this discounts the article as a reliable source here. Regarding Tucker's work having errors and suffering from a POV, I am not sure what can be done about that. As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia's sourcing policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability and not truth. Let's run through some questions:
  1. Do you agree that Tucker's The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict would pass muster at WP:RSN for this use of the word 'pogrom'? I'd have a very, very hard time believing it would not. Will you agree with me that according to Wikipedia rules, Tucker's encyclopedia is a WP:RS reliable source for this information? If not we can bring it up at WP:RSN and see what responses we get, but I think you know what the answers will be.
  2. Is the concern that Tucker's encyclopedia has errors in it specific to his description of the 1517 Hebron event? If not, and you're just making a general observation, and aren't talking about this article specifically, then we can drop it. But if so, do you see things in the article that you know to be errors? Can you point to a reliable source that describes the errors in the encyclopedia? Again, if this isn't really a concern, we can drop it.
  3. I am concerned that either you or I or both of us are suffering from Confirmation bias. You seem to be going at this assuming that if a source uses the word 'pogrom' then it suffers from unacceptable POV or isn't reliable.
  4. I am concerned that you are applying your own interpretation of the word 'pogrom' to your own understanding of the 1517 Hebron events. This is classic WP:OR, isn't it? Specifically, it's WP:SYNTHESIS--you're taking a definition of your choosing of the word 'pogrom' and your understanding of the events, putting the two together, and coming to a novel conclusion about whether the event qualifies as 'pogrom.'
  5. What reliable sources that meet your satisfaction can you bring? Right now we have decent sources that support 'pogrom.' You'd like to change it. Again referring back to Wikipedia rules, it's your WP:BURDEN to bring the sources, isn't it?
I'd prefer not to discuss COMMONNAME until we can agree on 'pogrom,' taking it one step at a time. Zad68 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

All reasonable questions. my answers below: 1. I agree - it is an RS here, just not a very good one (as we seem to broadly agree). There are better ones (see below). 2. No, general observation 3. Well, it's subconscious so we'll never know. But I doubt it - I think our arguments have both been pretty rational 4. My own view re pogrom is provided only for your context. This debate should focus on RS and COMMONNAME. 5. See below - the best ones already in the article. And my judgement as to "best" is based on the level of detail, explanation and sourcing provided Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm taking this as your agreement that we do have reliable source support for the characterization of the 1517 event as a 'pogrom'. Zad68 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Correct, that's what point 1 above says. Shall we continue the discussion as to what an NPOV WP:TITLE might be? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply



As I read the article, we have two sources which describe the event in detail (or what little primary detail exists). They are the Encyclopaedia Judaica and Hebron Jews: memory and conflict. Both of them reference and describe the single primary source, giving credibility to their account. The first calls it an "attack"[1] and the second calls it "violence and plunder"[2]. Can anybody find other sources which have similar or better focus on this event which use the word "pogrom"? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Once, I tried to pull together some sources for a WP:COMMONNAME discussion, and I've been collecting them here: User:Zad68/1517 Hebron pogrom sources. Feel free to review. I have been doing searches for things like "1517 Hebron _____" where _____ is "pogrom", "violence", "attack" etc. The issue is that very little detail is known about this event, and it is not widely known or discussed, so doing a Google hit-count is meaningless. In fact, I get far more spam links in my results then I do real results. What I'm finding out is that the event is most often referenced by Jewish authors while discussing some I-P topic. Plus, there is the Tucker encyclopedia entry that terms it a 'pogrom' as discussed earlier, and which you (grudgingly! :) ) agree is a WP:RS. There are various descriptors of the 1517 event as an "attack" or "violence" but the one word that comes up most often, if not a majority then a plurality of the time, is 'pogrom.' Based on our general agreement that Tucker can be used as a WP:RS here, and that the plurality of general references to it come back to 'pogrom,' I don't see a policy-based reason to change the title of the article. Zad68 20:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I like your style - this is good progress. I think that to make this work with scientific fairness we shouldn't pre-judge the possible options as your search proposal does. How about a search like "Hebron AND 1517 AND ______" where _____ is an uncommon proper noun which we know is connected like "Corfu", "Manasseh", "Murad Bey" or "Beirut". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I did this searching - I could only find the same two sources which cover in with this descriptive detail EJ and Auerbach. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I see you're working on my sources page... Go ahead and do the searches as you describe and post some results. Why should I do all the work? :) By the way, if you are of the mind to change the article title, you need to propose a new title. What do you suggest? Once we actually have a proposal we can compare existing vs. proposed. I have to step away for a while. Zad68 21:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
How about 1517 Hebron violence and plunder, to follow Auerbach? I don't believe either of those two terms are disputed or disputable. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at Talk:List_of_events_named_massacres/Inclusion_criteria - the sources you have shown would not qualify the article under this criteria. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Was this meant for here or for some other article Talk page? I saw you edited my sources list, but I don't agree with all of the characterization changes you made. Also, I don't see that you have done the bit of research I mentioned earlier. At this time I don't see that there is consensus for changing the title of this article. Zad68 20:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It was meant for here - like "pogrom", the term "massacre" can be used to imply a POV about an event. There is no consensus for the existing title, and it is not supported by WP:RS. I am open to discussing the thoughts you have re the sources on your page as soon as you are ready to do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's the other way around. There's no consensus to change the existing title at this time. You are the one proposing the change to the existing title-- per WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is policy, without consensus, a contested change does not happen and the article reverts back to what it was before the proposed change, which is the existing title. Zad68 16:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not. This article gets less than 10 hits a day. There has never been consensus for the existing title, and "silent consensus" is only credible in popular articles.
Could we pause with the wikilawyering and focus on the content dispute? I am interested in your views on the sources.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel like I'm "wikilawyering," rather I'm citing relevant policy to explain why your position that the title of the article needs to be changed by default isn't supported by Wikipedia precedent. When 2 editors have a content dispute like this, we have to base our arguments on policy, otherwise it's simply a "you say"/"I say" shouting match or edit-war and nothing good happens. The other side of your argument that "there has never been consensus for the existing title" is that about the article got about 300 views between when it was created and when you brought your concerns about POV, meaning that there were 300 potential editor-views and not enough of a POV problem was seen to raise a concern.

Regarding the sources, there are not that many sources because this is a pretty obscure event, but of the sources we do have, there is sufficient support for "pogrom." In my editorial judgment, in addition to being sufficiently supported by sources, "pogrom" feels right. It's better than your suggestion of 1517 Hebron violence and plunder, which isn't nearly specific enough, and would probably decrease search hits of readers looking for more info on this topic. Also, the trouble that we run into is that an article that calls it something general like "violence and plunder" does not rule out "pogrom," as a pogrom has as essential elements violence and plunder. It's hard to prove a negative--theoretically I could raise the argument, "We have some reliable sources that call it a pogrom, if you don't want it called that, you need to find me a reliable source that explicitly says it is not a pogrom."

Regarding the title, per WP:POVTITLE, which is policy, "Non-neutral but common names: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids," so even if you feel that "pogrom" is non-neutral, there's room in Wikipedia policy for it.

The bottom line is that we don't agree, and Wikipedia policy defaults to no change if there's no consensus to change. Theoretically I could just stonewall on this indefinitely, but that's not constructive. So at this time, my suggestion is that we both work together to come up with a RFC statement that is acceptable to both of us and put it out for comment by other editors. What do you think? Zad68 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zad, thanks for your excellent post. I don't mean that glibly either - your post was both thoughtful and thorough. Let me respond in turn to each of your points:
1. I had meant to suggest that we had both been "wikilawyering" - it was meant to go to the point that you put more eloquently, that we can both argue technicalities over wp:noconsensus. My counter to your 300 views is that there were zero edits between this article being created and my comment about the pov title. Seems we're agreed that we won't get anywhere with such a debate.
2. Re WP:POVTITLE, the quote you brought includes the words:
  • "referred to mainly by a single common name". That is absolutely not the case here - this event has never been referred to as "Hebron pogrom" outside wikipedia;
  • also "as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". This is also absolutely not the case. The two most reliable sources do not use the term pogrom, and in fact only one of the four secondary sources we have uses the term.
3. You say "pogrom" feels right. I say it feels wrong. I think this is a topic we could make progress discussing together if you are game? I'd prefer to see whether we can make progress here together before going into the RFP, which, by the way, should probably cover a number of other articles with similar issues with the title.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Once... Having a little break from this topic was useful for me, thanks for your patience. On getting back to this, I re-read the sources and I really get your point, honestly I do. But what we have here is a very thinly covered topic, and we're doing the best we can with applying Wikipedia policy to the sources we have. 1517 Hebron pogrom isn't perfect but it's the best available option.

Regarding points 1 and 3, what can we say other than we agree to disagree? Regarding point 2, come on. We have "The Turks' conquest of the city [Hebron] in 1517, was marked by a violent pogrom", "during 1516-1517 there was a pogrom in Hebron" and "There was a Muslim pogrom against Hebron's Jews at least as far back as 1517". Given this, 1517 Hebron pogrom is perfectly reasonable. Besides, the one suggested new name you've put forward 1517 Hebron violence and plunder is even more weakly supported with only "The inception of Ottoman rule in 1517 unleashed a wave of violence and plunder throughout Palestine", and the phrase isn't even applied specifically to Hebron like the pogrom sources do. I'm still getting the feeling that all that's going to happen here is more agreement to disagree. However I see there's a few new editors who have picked up this topic, maybe they'll be able to add something. Zad68 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zad, I waited for a while in the hope that others would join. In the meantime, after reading the context of one of the sources on your page i see it is definitely not RS - I have taken the liberty of striking it through above (please revert if you disagree). Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zad, I'd be grateful for your views on this when you have a moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
We need outside editors to help resolve this, the next step is to prepare an RFC. Zad68 01:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"against the Jews"


Sol-raz, I note you just added back "against the Jews", claiming it is supported by sources. As per WP:ONUS, please explain here. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the source (current 1st citation) says Jews were murdered, and deprived of their possessions. The source calls what happened a pogrom. In my view, that supports the opening statement of the article. Сол-раз (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sol, what you have just described is a logical fallacy called Affirming the consequent. Logically (A) if it was "against the Jews" then Jews would have been murdered etc. And factually (B), Jews were murdered. But applying fact B to affirm a conclusion from logic A is a fallacy.
It is also WP:OR, since the source does not make that statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It accurately describes the events and you have not proposed an alternate condition to account for (B) to render this argument fallacious. Your non-nonsensical response smacks of desperation. Ankh.Morpork 16:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Come on, Ankh, things like describing another editor's good-faith comments as "nonsense" and "smacks of desperation" don't help the dialog... Zad68 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Its not WP:OR its a paraphrase of the source--Shrike (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry guys but it's WP:OR. The only primary source, quoted in Auerbach, says Murad Bey's men “came to Hebron and killed a great number of Jews, who tried to defend themselves, and he took all their property as booty, until they were left with no refuge or livelihood in the land.” All the secondary and teritary sources paraphrase that quote.
Now, take another event at random like the Siege of Baghdad (1258). I bet you could find a source from a Baghdadi Jew that said Jews were massacred by Mongols in Baghdad in 1258. But that doesn't mean that the entire event in Baghdad was "against the Jews". It's the same here. One Jewish person wrote of a massacre of Jews. Nowhere did he or anyone else say that Jews were the only people killed, or were the sole focus of violence in Hebron. So we shouldn't make that jump either. Unless we have a source which says otherwise, which we don't. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Once, isn't this based on the assumption that Japheth b. Manasseh would not have recorded the slaying of non-Jews even if he knew about it? What makes us think that? Zad68 14:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Zad, I agree with you - it seems reasonable to expect that his letter would have indicated any wider context either implicitly or explicitly. If anyone is able to find his original letter (which I have looked for without success) it would help this debate greatly. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Very good Once... no I haven't been able to find any more of the original document other than what's been quoted in the sources we have already seen. For the article, all I can suggest is that we keep the wording vague enough so as to not exclude the possibility that other groups were targeted. I feel the current wording "The 1517 Hebron pogrom was a violent attack against the Jews of Hebron..." is just about the right amount of vague, but I'd be open to other wording suggestions. Zad68 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Zad, ok how about "The 1517 Hebron pogrom was a violent attack in Hebron in which many Jews were killed". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
How about "The 1517 Hebron pogrom was a violent attack against the Jews (and possibly other groups) of Hebron..."? Zad68 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zad, I don't think that works because we don't have RS supporting either statement "against the Jews" OR "possibly other groups". Seems like my turn to make a suggestion - could you tell me what you didn't like about my previous proposal so i can try again? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree with your previous suggestion "The 1517 Hebron pogrom was a violent attack in Hebron in which many Jews were killed", go ahead and make that edit. Zad68 23:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Cheers Zad, have done. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Letter of Japheth b. Manasseh


The following Hebrew text is taken from ספר חברון: עיר האבות ויישובה בראי הדורות by Oded Avishar, 1970:

בימי הכיבוש התורכי (1517) התחולל פוגרום ביהודי חברון. הפרופ׳ שטוסל פירסם תעודה כתובה על קלף (הנמצאת ב״ארכיון המוראבי הארצי־בברין), המספרת בזו הלשון: "ויהי בשנת הרע״ח לפ״ג לב״ע, בחודש השביעי בחג הסוכות (1517) האיש האכזר והעריץ כלי זעמו של הקב״ה ושבט אפו אמורד ביי משנה למלך ושליט בעיר ירושלים אמר בלבו לעלות על היהודים אשר בעירו וגם על ב״י החונים בחברון זמם לעשות כן. ויאמר אבוז בז ואשבה שבי מן היהודים אשר בשתי הערים בעודם לבטת אתי. ויבצא אמרתו ויגזור אומר ויקם. ביום ההוא באו אנשיו על חברון ויהרגו עם רב מן היהודים העומדים על נפשם וכל רכושם הביאו שלל עד בלי השאיר להם פליט ומחיה בארץ. וינוסו אנשים מתי מעט מנוסת חרב וירדו לארץ ביירות. וטרם נסעם מיהרו להביא עמם את ס"ת הקדושה בחיקם ויבקשו להוציא את כלי הקודש עמם. ובעוונותינו הרבים לא מצאו דבר...נכתב ונחתם פה ק״ק קורפו, יום ו׳ לחדש טבת, ה׳רע״ט (1519). יפת בן מנשה ס״ט״. תעודה זו מלמדת לדעת, שבאותה תקופה היה ישוב יהודי גדול, יחסית, בחברון (״עם רב מן היהודים״) אשר העז גם לעמוד על נפשו.

He states that Bey "thought to himself to rise up against the Jews in his town (Jerusalem) and also against the Jews living in Hebron.." Avishar describes the attack as a "pogrom". As does:

---/ Chesdovi (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work ! Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good letter. Has anyone seen a translation in English that we could use in the article?
On the name, i'm not sure Hebrew uses of the term pogrom can be used to justify English usage. Is the term פוגרום in Hebrew really used in exactly the same way as the term "pogrom" is in English, or is it used more "liberally". With respect to Weiner, his work is not RS for this topic - the work has a clear modern political angle and Weiner works for a right-wing think tank.
Interestingly though, Weiner's work brings out the heart of the issue here - he says "Pogroms are the mass killing of Jewish people". Although that definition is used in common parlance (particularly by political types), that is not the "technical" historical definition and is not how we describe the term at the Pogrom article.
In my opinion the sources at User:Zad68/1517 Hebron pogrom sources tell a clear story. The NPOV and "historical" sources do not use the term pogrom, whereas politicized and POV sources do. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
One thing that bothers me about many article like this, also the Safed 1614 one, is that a lot of them are based on primary sources produced by people with a strong motivation for exaggeration. These communities relied on foreign charity for their existence and they were forever writing letters begging for more money. Of course such letters will always claim their communities are in dire need for assistance. Interpretation of them needs a scholar who understands the genre and is motivated to seek the truth. I'm horrified to see the right-wing extremist Justus Weiner listed here instead. Zerotalk 13:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It seems the propaganda worked both ways, with some opting to paint a optimistic picture, or was Meinsterl the exception providing us with the truthful reality?:

Early in the seventeenth century Safed enjoyed a brief revival of its former glory. The cabbalist Solomon Meinsterl of Dresnitz, Moravia, thirsting to drink at the wellspring of mysticism, arrived in Safed in the fall of 1602. In his letters he painted a vivid picture of the spiritual and general condition of Safed in the period… Meinsterl emphasized that there was peace in the land, that the Arabs treated the Jewish sanctuaries with respect, never disturbing Jews as they went out in prayer shawls and phylacteries to pray in the fields or at then- holy places. But his description was apparently intended for external "propaganda," for other contemporary sources spoke of the "exile" which the Jews of Safed were suffering at the hands of both their rulers and their neighbors.

(Louis Finkelstein) - Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Does Nathan Schur not suit that need? Or do you feel his material presents a certain bias? I was inclined to include Weiner, as his piece was published by the Boston University International Law Journal which "seeks to maintain the highest editorial standards and to produce a professional quality publication worthy of international recognition." I also am trying to trace a certain "Remon"? Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The source given by Weiner is not Remon but Keinon, and the reference is to an article by Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post. What sort of historian relies on newspaper articles for medieval history? (This is a rhetorical question.) Keinon's complete take on it is "The city was conquered by the Ottomans in 1517, but this was marked by a violent pogrom." No source given. (JP 17 Jan 1997) Zerotalk 03:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Working from 1st sources will always be a problem.
And in this current case it seems that the secondary sources didn't invest much in research before reporting the events. In other words, all this is not very reliable.
I add that this secondary sources [5] talks about a revolt that occured at Safed and Hebron and that seems in contradiction with the notion of pogrom.
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Natan Schur satisfies WP:RS. I don't read Hebrew so I can't comment on the source you found, but I've seen some articles of his in English and they are scholarly. Neither Shmuel Katz nor Justus Weiner are/were historians and they do not satisfy WP:RS. We must not cite people who simply copy "facts" from somewhere else and never actually studied the subject themselves. Zerotalk 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is a source that seems to contradict the claim that Hebron was empty of Jews for 16 years after 1517.

"It seems that no substantial change occurred with regard to this community as an immediate result of the Ottoman occupation . At the turn of the fifteenth century a Jewish traveller found about twenty Jewish famihes and in 1522 another Jewish traveller mentions about ten (Bassola, [1522] in Ya'ari, Massa'ot, p. 147 and Obadiah de Bertinoro (1487-90) cited in Ben Zvi, Eretz Israel, p. 150). It is most likely, therefore, that the first tahrir carried-out in 1525-6, which lists no Jews or Christians, was incomplete." Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century (Princeton University Press, 1978) pp. 108–109.

The important one here is Bassola's account. I see it in several places but I've run out of time just now. Zerotalk 01:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moshe Basola actually visited Hebron in December 1521 and reported "eight or ten" Jewish households there. [6]. Also this book refers to the question (suggesting there is only one source of uncertain provenance for a depopulation ca 1517). This book translates the relevant sentence of Basola's account as "There is a courtyard where eight or ten householders live, and that is where their synagogue is" (doesn't actually say that no other Jewish households existed elsewhere, but that is my OR). Zerotalk 09:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have a problem with these different estimates of populations, as they seem to compare different things. In the 19th century (and possibly long before) some Christian and Jewish families lived in Hebron part of the year (due to trade), while their "base" was another place, (mostly Jerusalem). They would therefore be counted in the Jerusalem tahrir, while a traveller could have encountered them in Hebron. Also: many elderly Jewish people came to Palestine to spend their last years there (--> to be buried there); again, these people would be noted by travellers, but would not figure in "official" counting. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, Obadiah de Bertinoro, who visited about 1490, says that about 20 Rabbinic Jewish families lived there, "half of whom are descended from anusim who came recently to take refuge under the wings of God's presence". Zerotalk 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if all that is believed about events of 1517 comes from a single primary source. If so, it is very little and I'm not sure it matters how many writers repeat the story. Why does this event deserve to be more than a sentence or two in Hebron? Zerotalk 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am in two minds, because the effort that has gone into these articles has been helpful in bringing more clarity around these events, which are referred to in right-wing histories of the region.
Separately, worth looking at this related article: Talk:List_of_massacres_in_Palestine#Merge_and_unbalanced_focus.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply



Oncenawhile, your rename is completely disruptive and unsourced. I do however agree that pogrom might not be used here. Your rename doesn't seem to correlate Pitcher's description of the Ottoman assault in the region [7] (there doesn't seem to have been ant serious fight in Hebron).GreyShark (dibra) 11:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Pluto, the move is a violation of WP:RM. There was no discussion on the move.GreyShark (dibra) 11:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I inform Oncenwhile of the discussion.
Would you mind trying to find a compromise with GreyShark on this issue ?
I have no mind about the title. My point of view is that this article should be deleted because the event is not relevant enough (no consequence on the history of the region ; not described today unless is very few sources).
But I have no objection to see this article staying there.
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi Greyshark and Pluto, thanks for your interest here. I think we're all in the same position here - noone cares too much about what the alternative title is, or even whether the article remains, but calling it a pogrom has no basis so should be changed. I am happy to go to WP:RM, but as I said at Talk:1517 Safed pogrom this might not be easy because there is no stand out option. So to try to narrow things down, here are some alternatives:
  • 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Hebron
  • 1517 Hebron assault
  • 1517 Hebron massacres
  • 1517 Hebron attacks
  • 1517 in Hebron
  • 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War in Jewish communities (would require merger with the Safed article)
  • Jews during the 1517 Ottoman–Mamluk War (would require merger with the Safed article)
My preference is either of the last two, as that is really what the original primary sources are describing.
To Greyshark's point about Pitcher's description, that is why we are not calling this the "1517 Battle of Hebron". All the main sources in this article attest that the events in Hebron and Safed happened against the backdrop of the wider war. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I left a message on the talk page of all contributors who discussed on the talk page of both the Safed and the Hebron articles suggesting to go on the Safed Talk Page to discuss the issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
After looking at the article and the discussion, I'd say the title 1517 Hebron attacks is the most appropriate one. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress


There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1517 Safed pogrom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply