Talk:Hebron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Geography To-do list: ...
Close

Iberian convivencia

“which ended centuries of the Iberian convivencia (coexistence)”

Don't you mean The Muslim invasion of Spain ;)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48577858

Trivia removed

A user had inserted a section about a proposed "Emirate of Hebron". Some time has passed, and it is clear that that proposal is trivia and not notable. The handful of individuals who have suggested this are not notable. While they appear to have some support from Israeli officials, they are not representative of the Palestinian population and they are not in charge of Hebron. If Hebron's mayor had suggested it, it might be notable. Some random individuals using the title Sheik proposing it? No, that is not notable in any way. If a random guy in California proposed creating a "Kingdom of San Francisco", we would not include that in the California article either. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Zerotalk 12:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I am not opposing the removal as it seems to be going nowhere and if that changes, we can always readd it. I dont think it is not notable per se, but it does seem one-eventy, with no continued information. I will note that the edit summary was a bit crass and POV, and unnecessarily editorializing. It would have sufficed to just say that it is a single event trivial information that has not panned out anywhere, which seems to be the case. Metallurgist (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 5 September 2025

Description of suggested change: The part in history where it describes ancient Israel should be under another category because the sources used are only religious sources and do not have an objective factual quality and should be under religious and/or mythological catergory as a part of a more subjective value, In the field of history religious scripture can be takento get an idea how that specific religious group sees/perceives the world but not for fact, thus cannot be part of the history category. 2A02:A44E:E0BA:0:5C1E:64FC:C73D:82A1 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 14 November 2025

Description of suggested change:

Summary: The first word "Hebron", should be replaced with "Hebron, also Al-Khalil".

Reason: The Arabic name of the city, Al-Khalil, is absent from the opening paragraph. This is conspicuous because it is the name used by the vast majority of the city's residents. Compare, for example the article on the city of Kiev/Kyiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv, which opens with "Kyiv, also Kiev". In that article, the Russian name is presented second, despite the fact that it is even stated in the article that Russian is the primary language used at home by the residents of that city (although only a slight majority). In the case of Al-Khalil/Hebron, the number of residents who call it Hebron is the *overwhelming minority*, and so excluding the Arabic name is very conspicuous and is an easily correctable omission.

Diff:

−
'''Hebron'''
+
'''Hebron''', also '''Al-Khalil'''

~2025-33450-84 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide evidence of the name Al-Khalil being used. NotJamestack (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Quick note: "Al-Khalil" in my request above should be replaced by "Al-Khalīl", which is the correct Latin transliteration, taken from the article itself.
Reply to the comment above: The article itself provides this evidence. It says that:
1) Al-Khalīl (الخليل) is the Arabic name
2) "Hebron had a population of 201,063 Palestinians in 2017, and seven hundred Jewish settlers concentrated on the outskirts of its Old City." That is, all but approx. seven hundred of its 200k+ residents are Arabic-speaking Palestinians.
These two facts together imply that the vast majority of the city's residents use this name for the city, and therefore it should be mentioned along with the Hebrew name in the opening sentence. In fact, it would be easy to argue that this should be the first name mentioned, but I am requesting simply that it be mentioned at all.
Further evidence of its use, from various sources found in a quick online search:
~2025-33450-84 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hm. I will try to look for a consensus first. NotJamestack (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You will try to look for a consensus on what? That this is the Arabic name of the city? ~2025-33450-84 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, this has been clarified. Thanks ~2025-33450-84 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm just trying to make sure it's uncontroversial. NotJamestack (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
It probably is controversial, given the political history of the city. Names of things under dispute are inherently controversial. That is why my original request referred to another example of a city with a controversial naming dispute (Kyiv/Kiev), and requested that the same standard used there be used here as well.
Thanks for your help. ~2025-33450-84 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed addition to lead section

CLOSED - MOVE BOTH TO FOOTNOTE
This was a difficult closure and I wish to assure all participants that I took my time with it. Because there are some contentious topics involved (though not necessarily directly) I would like to assure editors that I rarely edit this side of Wikipedia and am entirely uninvolved. There was not a terribly strong showing of support on either side of the fence and it additionally seemed as-if some editors were unclear as to what the issue at-stake was. The arguments seemed to primarily revolve around "close association," obviously a quite subjective term. I have no doubt that this subject will be revisited again - and perhaps should, hopefully with a wider audience - however, in the meantime, I must defer to what I feel is the stronger style argument. Per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV; "When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a "Names" section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature."
For the purposes of this closure, I find that there is "close association" between Hebron and both Arabic and Hebrew. Hebrew need not be afforded any "special status" by Palestine in order for it to be "closely associated;" these can — and often are — two separate standards. Ultimately, I feel the MOS is clear and the most compelling argument. I cannot give much weight to supporting arguments when the MOS is so clear. Both Arabic and Hebrew names should be moved to a footnote, akin to this revision. Arabic should be listed first, before Hebrew.
A discussion to determine whether Hebron has a "close association" with Hebrew (or vice-versa) may be warranted, but that is beyond the scope of this closure. MWFwiki (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead section also mention Hebron's Arabic name? (Al-Khalīl) NotJamestack (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Why not use (Arabic: الخليل, romanized: Al-Khalīl; Hebrew: חברון, romanized: Hevron)? Alaexis¿question? 11:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. This is standard for locations and doesn't need an RfC. There is nothing controversial about it. Zerotalk 13:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed i think that was the convention. ok actually unstriking vote, agree with zero0000. read foreignequiv, should probably include the arab,hebrew and romanized spelling at this point, per Alaexis suggestion. nvm, see below User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Which convention? Does Hebrew have a special status in Palestine? M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
saw folks citing procedures below. will read when i got time, but withdrawing for now. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. This is similar to Haifa but more concise. Lastchapter (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
While Arabic has a special status in Israel, Hebrew has no special status in Palestine, and therefore, the two cannot be considered as "similar". M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying- I understand what you're saying after reviewing the issue further. I strike my previous support.Lastchapter (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Alaexis, @Bluethricecreamman, @Zero0000 Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTVOTE. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I think both names should be included. Considering Hebron was a historically important city that had a continuous Jewish presence for centuries prior to the Hebron Massacre and now has a majority Arab in the modern era I think both names should be in the lead in their Romanized forms. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
It has been known as Arabic: الخليل, romanized: al-Khalīl for centuries, and it was known as (Arabic: حبرة) or Ḥabrūn (Arabic: حبرون) for centuries before that. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
What's the harm in having both? Prior to the region being Arabized it was a Jewish colony. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Speedy close, waste of time for uncontroversial change User:Easternsaharareview this 13:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC) I have changed my view to Support the removal of the Hebrew name and to have only the Arabic name. Etymology needn't be shown using translation, especially when an etymology section exists for this purpose. In addition, I support the bolding of the arabic romanization as it is used in English as well. I apologize for initally being dense and perhaps rude. User:Easternsaharareview this 05:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
No no, stop trying to shut this down immediately. How about we ask if both can be included. Barely any articles have this, if at all. NotJamestack (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
yes, a place that is in palestine should have an arabic translation included. a place important to judaism should have a hebrew translation included, why would this be controversial? User:Easternsaharareview this 14:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
By both, I mean this as well: “Hebron, (also known as Al-Khalīl)” So we can get: “Hebron, (also known as Al-Khalīl) (Arabic: الخليل, romanized: Al-Khalīl; Hebrew: חברון, romanized: Hevron) NotJamestack (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
This wording is barely in any articles, if at all. NotJamestack (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we add the Arabic name only? M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
What? Please look at my above rewording again. NotJamestack (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
What exactly are you suggesting and why? M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I’m trying to suggest this “Hebron, (also known as Al-Khalīl) (Arabic: الخليل, romanized: Al-Khalīl; Hebrew: חברון, romanized: Hevron)” adding both a mention and IPA so we can get the best of both worlds. I think this is controversial since barely any articles use it. NotJamestack (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
best of both worlds which worlds?
I think this is controversial since barely any articles use it what is controversial and which articles are you referring to?
You need to be more specific. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Hebron is the COMMONNAME, but the change M Bitton made seems fine. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
And FWIW, the official website uses Hebron, altho the arabic says Khalil. https://www.hebron-city.ps/ The etymology of it is fascinating. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The question is not whether we should add the Arabic name of Hebron, there is a consensus on that. The question is whether we can also add the name of Hebron in Hebrew characters and its romanized version. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
That website uses Arabic and English only, and since we "do not include non-English equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology", then there is no reason for us to add another non-English equivalent (except perhaps in a footnote, with the others). M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The RFC isnt about Hebrew, but I think a case could be made for including that given the significant association and relevancy. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Nope, they most certainly are not. Only the Arabic language is and has been closely associated with the subject for centuries. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, to add Hebrew to a Palestinian city where Hebrew is a foreign language with no special status. In fact, the other Arabic name (Arabic: خَلِيل الرَّحْمَن, romanized: Khalīl al-Raḥmān) is the second more relevant name after Arabic: الخليل, romanized: al-Khalīl. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
@Boutboul: I moved your second !vote to your first. Feel free to reword it as you wish or strike the word "comment" and replace it with "oppose", but please don't !vote multiple times (with comments and the like). M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Please don't move it, this is my first and only !vote and by the way the only vote for the moment. Comments and discussion are not !vote. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
In that case, your multiple "comments" belong in the discussion section. M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait for the outcome of the RfC before applying it? Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Please don't move the only !votes of others to the discussion section again. M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Arabic is the most closely associated language here, and therefore certainly belongs in the first sentence; see MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV. Frankly, I don't believe Hebrew belongs here at all let alone equating it with Arabic (given that the entire city's inhabitants speak Arabic, in addition to Arabic being the sole official language in this territory). Skitash (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment After doing more research, I agree with this option above "(Arabic: الخليل, romanized: Al-Khalīl; Hebrew: חברון, romanized: Hevron)"
Both variations translate somewhat to the English word "friend" and are a reference to the biblical Abraham. Guz13 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - Per WP:NCGN the article title should remain "Hebron", which is the common English name, itself derived from the Hebrew name of the city. MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV recommends that, "separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas". For a city like Hebron, which is closely and simultaneously associated in reliable sources with both Arabic and Hebrew, giving one equivalent per language (Arabic: الخليل, romanized: Al-Khalīl; Hebrew: חברון, romanized: Ḥevron) is consistent with MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV while still respecting its intent of avoiding lead clutter. So I agree with AlaexisMichael Boutboul (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV says an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country typically includes the local-language equivalent, which in this case is the Arabic name since Hebrew has no special status in Palestine.
    It also says Do not include non-English equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include non-English equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
In this specific case, both Arabic and Hebrew are clearly "closely associated" with the city in reliable English-language sources; MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV does not tie "local-language equivalent" to constitutional status.Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
local-language equivalent is plain English. M.Bitton (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Local-language equivalent in MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is followed by Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas., which clearly anticipates cases where more than one language is given when appropriate. Nothing in the guideline ties "local-language" to constitutional status; it is about the languages the subject is actually closely associated with in reliable English-language sources. In the case of Hebron, that plainly includes both Arabic and Hebrew, so one equivalent per language in a single concise parenthetical remains consistent with MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV.
Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I believe that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is clear. Obviously, it has to be read completely (and not cherry picked). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I do not think my reading of MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is unusual. Other articles already apply it with a single concise parenthetical that contains one equivalent per language, with languages separated by semicolons, exactly as the guideline describes. You could check for example : Siirt, Kashgar, Baikonur or Larkana; others use a note like Nicosia. I do not intend to prolong any personal dispute and will defer to wider community. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I dont think anyone is advocating changing the page to al-Khalil? The English COMMONNAME is Hebron, and that is also the name used by the official Palestine government sources locally and nationally. What is even being disputed here? ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
What is at issue here is whether the Hebrew name of Hebron should be included in the lead next to the Arabic name, as proposed from the outset by @Alaexis and supported by @Zero0000, @NotJamestack, @Easternsahara, @Bluethricecreamman and me but opposed by @Lastchapter, @M.Bitton - Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a vote (we have guidelines to follow). The Hebrew name doesn't belong there because per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, we do not include non-English equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
ah, it says single equivalent, not multiple equivalent in foreignequiv. Should have read this more. I'm striking my vote again, we can't clutter the lede.
My new vote is probably just what M.Bitton said, we should not include the hebrew equivalent and arab equivalent both, we should pick one (probably arab), and include the rest in the footnote. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV literally says “a single equivalent name in another language”, but the same sentence immediately adds “separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas”, so the wording is ambiguous: read narrowly it means one foreign name, read together with that clause (and with actual practice) it clearly allows multiple languages in one parenthesis. Dozens – probably more – of city articles (including the examples already given in this RfC) follow this latter interpretation why would it be different for this case? And I do not think that two languages in a compact parenthesis genuinely clutter the lead. Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
The separate languages part doesn't apply given that Hebrew is not a local language in Hebron. Furthermore, it's addition would serve no other purpose than to include etymology in the lead (something that is explicitly disallowed by MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV). M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
I never brought up etymology; my point is that Hebrew and Arabic are both closely associated with Hebron, which nobody here seems to dispute except you. In any case, I have asked for a clarification at the Manual of Style/Lead section talk page. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
both implies that they are equal (which they certainly are not). I have brought up etymology for a valid reason (as I explained above). M.Bitton (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I asked for a clarification in the Manual of Style/Lead section talk page [] Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
    Clarification on the Manual of Style lead-section talk page has been completed. The current consensus is:
    When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out any of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a “Names” section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature.
    See MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV
    Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV also says: an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country typically includes the local-language equivalent, which in this case is the Arabic name of the Palestinian city.
    Since the subject is and has for centuries been closely associated with the Arabic name, the decision is fairly straightforward: we keep the Arabic name (the local-language equivalent) in the first sentence and drop all the others (including the non-local ones) in a footnote. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment – It seems that at least two editors are unaware that Hebrew is closely associated with Hebron. The city holds a central place in the Hebrew Bible and in later Jewish religious literature, especially as the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Hebron also maintained a Jewish community for centuries until the 1929 massacre, and today a small but visible Hebrew-speaking population (a few hundred settlers and yeshiva students) still lives in the H2 area alongside tens of thousands of Palestinians. In addition, a wide range of English-language sources – including encyclopedias, academic work, press and feature articles, TV news, NGO material, local civic websites and travel guides – routinely uses the Hebrew name of Hebron, as illustrated below:
More information Category, Source (author, title) ...
Category Source (author, title) Short quotation (in English)
Encyclopaedia Britannica "Hebron", Encyclopaedia Britannica, main article (article) "Hebrew: חברון (Ḥevron)"
Master's thesis (academic use) Hamzeh Abdel Hamid Mujahed, "Automatic Essays Scoring", M.Sc. thesis, Al-Quds University, 2009, Appendix A, Q12.4 (PDF) "Hebron (in Arabic, al-Khalil; in Hebrew, Hevron) is an ancient city, holy to both Judaism and Islam..."
General media (business/feature) Business Insider, Hebron photo-essay / explainer (archived article) (Business Insider) Refers to "its name in both Hebrew (Hevron) and Arabic (Al-Khalil)..."
TV news Julie Stahl, "Beyond the Headlines: Uncovering the Real Hebron...", CBN News, 9 Sept 2019 (article) ""Hevron" in Hebrew and "Al-Khalil" in Arabic..."
Online political / conflict media Kasper Lundberg, "Falling through the Looking Glass in Hebron", The Electronic Intifada, 1 Apr 2005 (article) "...Al-Khalil (in Arabic) as well as Hevron (in Hebrew)..."
Local educational / civic website Humans of Hebron, "Hebron: Historical City of The Friend" (article) The English name "Hebron" is taken from the biblical and modern Hebrew name "Hevron" (חברון in the Hebrew language).
Peace NGO Parents Circle – Families Forum, "Two-Sided Story – Discussion Guide" (PDF) "Hebron ('al-Khalil' in Arabic and 'Hevron' in Hebrew)..."
Cruise / travel information The Cruise Web, "Hebron, Palestine Cruise Port" (cruise port page) "Hebron (Al-Khalil in Arabic, Hevron in Hebrew) is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world..."
Close

— Preceding Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Boutboul (talk • contribs)

Information Note: the above cherry picking and irrelevant nonsense about others has been noted and ignored for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't change that Hebrew's association with Hebron is mostly historic and, if deserving a mention, should be placed in the history of etymology section. User:Easternsaharareview this 05:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The question, is Hebrew closely associated with Hebron? Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Guz13 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, there is only one city called Hebron in the West Bank. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2026

Remove "{Pp-extended" which sits at the very top of the page. Im not sure what it is? It seems to be more of a technical mistake than vandalism but is nontheless a meaningless line. Thank you.


}} SashankInAnitquity (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done It appears to have been inadvertently changed in this edit. I restored the correct version. M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI