Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bethlehem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:52, 23 October 2024 edit2601:408:c402:b6b2:110d:764c:156d:c1f9 (talk) Language: ReplyTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:27, 11 January 2025 edit undoIskandar323 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,587 edits Edit request - first phrase: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(26 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 38: Line 38:
}} }}


== Edit request - Amarna reference == == Edit request - first phrase ==


Hi, many people wonder if Bethlehem is in Israel or Palestine, that’s why I liked the previous opening sentence - “Bethlehem is a city in the ], in the ]…”, but I see that it has recently been changed to “…is a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”, which of course is factually correct, but in my opinion saying first thing that it is Israeli-occupied makes it seem like it is Israeli, more so than Palestinian. What about removing the “Israeli” from the first line, only to make it clear it is Palestinian, and leaving the part about Israeli occupation where it is already mentioned, further down? Thank you. ] (]) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask for the '''help of an authorized editor''' to change the references to the Amarna correspondence as they are demonstrably based on wishful thinking. This is not crack-pottery or original research, but properly sourced below and also evident to anybody who can read some cuneiform.


:I suggest we change the introduction to "Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank". This adds clarity to the legal status of the city. ] (]) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's how the Britannica puts it: '''"An ancient settlement, it is possibly mentioned in the Amarna Letters (14th-century-bce diplomatic documents found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt), but the reading there is uncertain."''' - we could also just copy this statement.
:@]
:Hello, I see that you reverted the first sentence to include "Israeli-occupied" before West Bank.
:-
:While this is an accurate description, some of us would prefer it be rephrased, so that the UN legal status of the city (Palestinian) is more obvious to readers who wish to skim the article.
:-
:I'd like your input on this discussion so we can make an informal consensus about the lead. ] (]) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure. I think the present phrasing is pretty clear and doesn't really create the problem you describe. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Re: this article :
:::This phrasing is surprising. Look at the lede for most any other page describing some city, say, ] or ]. I expect the first link naming the country/region/etc. a city is in to link to the page on that country/region/etc. Using a phrasing like "...is a city in ], in the ]" is obviously factually correct and links directly to the appropriate containing region with two useful levels of granularity. Note, for example, that the third paragraph on Donetsk also describes how that region is currently under military occupation in quite some detail: it is and has been relevant enough to deserve that kind of placement. Maybe the opening or the lede of this article deserves more detail about the impacts of this occupation, but that sounds more like an enhancement someone could make than a flaw in what stood.
:::I think the version in my edit was better on those fronts, so I'm currently feeling like we should just let that version rock, and let anyone so interested improve it further. If you've got any objections, I'd like to see something more constructive than "I think it was pretty clear before" or "I don't feel like this an improvement." ''Why?'' ] (]) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Remsense hasn't responded, and it's been a week. I think it would be okay for you to be bold and restore your edit. ] (]) 05:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I mean, I still think the present phrasing is perfectly clear, but if others are convinced there's a problem I don't see the need to stonewall. I don't feel there's much to say about it—it's not a big change—I just don't see the problems described above when I read the present wording, sorry. Every article's different, and while the ] argument here isn't entirely hollow I don't think it's changing my mind. I did try. That is to say, the proposed change is fine; I meant what I said before in that I don't think it's an improvement, but go for it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A reference to the occupation in the first sentence is not needed for the reasons mentioned in . In addition, "Israeli-occupied West Bank" is a redundant and tautologous phrase, since all of the West Bank is occupied (that's its deal), and there is no "un-occupied West Bank" to contrast this with. It's like talking about the "wet ocean". ] (]) 06:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Etymology ==
The basis of the often repeated statement that Bethlehem is mentioned in the Amarna correspondence goes back to W. F. Albright. The original tablet, EA 290 (Amarna letter 290), does, however, not say bit-Lahmi, but bit-nin-urta (or nin-ib, in an alternative reading). Albright went through some hair-raising acrobatics to apply a different reading to get the desired result.


'לחם' in any context does not mean food.
Here is how Nicolas Blincoe (Bethlehem, biography of a town) describes the genesis of this interpretation (end of chapter 1, I do not see page numbers):
'בית לחם' can only mean 'house of bread'.
I wanted to edit it, but since it is closed I can not, so here I am. ] (]) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request - failed source verification ==
''"Albright was quick to pick up on Schroeder's claim to have found the first mention of Bethlehem. But he offered a different and far simpler translation. He argued that the cuneiform symbol Beit-Ninurta could be read Beit-Lahmu because "Lahmu" was an alternative for Ninurta among the Sumerians. No one has ever suggested this, and as Lahmu is only ever mentioned in conjunction with his twin sister, Lahamu, the connection is highly dubious. In truth, Albright seems to have misunderstood Schroeder's reading, which had only been published in German. Albright recanted in 1968, when he identified Beit-Ninurta with Beit Horon, yet his fanciful interpretation of the Abdi-Heba letter is still cited in guidebooks and archaeological studies to date Bethlehem."''


The article includes the line, "Christian families that have lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years are being forced to leave as land in Bethlehem is seized, and homes bulldozed, for construction of thousands of new Israeli homes." The citation, source , does not corroborate this. The closest the article (which is not directly hyperlinked for some reason?) comes is in the paragraph: "Down in Beit Sahour, which is mostly Christian, residents of one housing development have been living under the threat of demolition for more than a decade since an Israeli court ruled its building illegal. The order was frozen but never lifted, leaving families in limbo, wondering if or when the bulldozers will arrive and where they will go if they do. “This is the only place left for us,” says William Sahouri, whose family has lived in the area for more than 300 years. “There are no lands to expand.”"
BTB, Misplaced Pages's own article on the letter has bit-Ninurta, as it should: https://en.wikipedia.org/Amarna_letter_EA_290, line 15


As you can see, this article does not allege that even a single Christian family was actually forced anywhere. The "lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years" is in reference to a single family, that had lived "in the area", whose presence as far as the article is concerned is still in Bethlehem, and they are not even explicitly identified as Christian. The claim that Christian families are being forced out is not substantiated by the article, for reasons of constructing new Israeli homes or for any other reason.
How about this as a compromise then: ''"Bethlehem has been suggested as a reading for the place-name bīt-ninurta in one of the Amarna letters (EA 290), but this reading is very uncertain and has been rejected by other scholars."''


I request that the article be edited to reflect what the source actually says.
Likewise in the section under Canaanite, the name Bit-Lachmi should be replaced by the original Bit-ninurta with a reference that this name has been interpreted by at least two scholars as Bethlehem, but that said reading is uncertain and has met with significant objections.


Here is the article: https://www.thetimes.com/article/settlements-choke-peace-in-the-little-town-of-bethlehem-mkczz7vgvvz ] (]) 05:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hope an editor sees this, makes it through my wall of text and is willing to work on it. Please contact me on my contact page if I can help. Thanks! ] (]) 23:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


:I think that is it almost universally agreed upon that Palestinian Christians have had their homes seized and bulldozed in order for Israel to create and expand settlements. Regardless of somebody's political opinion in this area, removing information about the pressure placed on Palestinian Christians by the Israeli occupation would result in a presentation of the conflict that is not based in reality. If your issue is the source provided, there are several sources you can find that describe the theft of Palestinian Christian land and places of living in order to create or expand Israeli settlements. ] (]) 05:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{EPER|answered=yes}}
::Add those sources you found, then. Assuming OP here is correct (I haven't read deeply) , see ]. ] (]) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:please change "The earliest-known mention of Bethlehem is in the Amarna correspondence of ancient Egypt, dated to 1350–1330 BCE, when the town was inhabited by the Canaanites." to "A possible first mention of Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna correspondence of ancient Egypt, dated to 1350–1330 BCE, although that reading is uncertain". and "The earliest mention of Bethlehem as a place appears in the Amarna correspondence (c. 1400 BCE), in which it is referred to as Bit-Laḫmi, a name for which the origins remain unknown." (under Etymology) to "Amarna letter EA290 (wiki-link to https://en.wikipedia.org/Amarna_letter_EA_290) makes reference to a town bīt-ninurta which has been read as Bit-Lachmi by scholar W. F. Albright following a proposal by Otto Schroeder in 1815 and making it a potential first historical reference to Bethlehem. This reading is, however, uncertain and has met with objections "
:Direct link to Blincoe: https://books.google.com/books?id=wJOYDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT51&lpg=PT51&dq=Albright+was+quick+to+pick+up+on+Schroeder%27s+claim+to+have+found+the+first+mention+of+Bethlehem.+But+he+offered+a+different+and+far+simpler+translation.+He+argued+that+the+cuneiform&source=bl&ots=oQbBCZTWGN&sig=ACfU3U3UIje8VOqbXc1m5qLyjTvsbhVLlg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioo_fE7YKFAxXZg4kEHc8yDt4Q6AF6BAgrEAM#v=onepage&q=Albright%20was%20quick%20to%20pick%20up%20on%20Schroeder's%20claim%20to%20have%20found%20the%20first%20mention%20of%20Bethlehem.%20But%20he%20offered%20a%20different%20and%20far%20simpler%20translation.%20He%20argued%20that%20the%20cuneiform&f=false
:I have no interest in denigrating the history of any particular religion or ethnicity - simply came to this from the cuneiform side when a student mentioned the Amarna reference to me and I looked at the tablet in question to quickly realize that this is a common story which is uncritically repeated a hundred years after even though the evidence really does not bear it out, in my view - I am horrified that this is not at least qualified somewhat in the Misplaced Pages article the way e.g. the Britannica does it. Having raised this issue twice in the comments now (see Archive 2), I thought I'd try an EPER. Hope somebody can take a look and happy to collaborate if I can. ] (]) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:: {{done}} ] ] 21:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


== Made-up "sources" == == Edit request - "effected" ==


Please can someone ''effect'' this change in the lead:
1st sentence had as "sources" two totally unrelated texts, dealing with preps for Millennium Year (pre-2000 real building work & "Potemkin villages") and use of Hebrew and Arabic in "Small Triangle" vs. West Bank. Not
*B. in Arabic, Hebrew
*distance from Jerusalem (how to be measured? Not an empty question, the two touch each other.)
*current population
*admin. status of B. city.
Who's kidding whom?


Aspects of life in and around Bethlehem are '''effected''' by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. → Aspects of life in and around Bethlehem are '''affected''' by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Here they are if you doubt it.


Per widely accepted usage, see ] and ]. ] (]) 02:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Amara, 1999, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210529123058/https://books.google.com/books?id=LG5seycNTAcC&pg=PA18 |date=May 29, 2021 }}.


:{{fixed}} by undoing the recent edit that happened to introduce the error, and I found not to be an improvement regardless. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Brynen, 2000, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210529123059/https://books.google.com/books?id=AQhxlSjmDcQC&pg=PA202 |date=May 29, 2021 }} ] (]) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


== section 'Economy' : dead calm since 7 October 2023 ==
== Language ==


on 7 October 2023, Hamas and other terror groups launched the ]. Since then, there is almost no tourism in Israel. Bethlehem haslost two peak seasons: Christmas 2023 and 2024. poverty and unemployment have risen.
Why does Bethlehem have the Hebrew name in its opening sentence, while ] does not have the Arabic name in its own? What is the relevant guideline on this issue? And how can consistency be maintained without prejudice relating to the names of Palestinian cities? ] (]) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)


https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/weihnachten-bethlehem-krieg-nahost-102.html (2023)
:The name has been Bethlechem (Heb., "house of bread") for over 3000 years and is still called by this name on all signage in the town. Since the town is officially situated in the administrative district of Judea & Samaria, Israel, its Hebrew name takes priority over any political agenda to call it by any name in a foreign tongue, just as Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) is called by its historical Hebrew name. ] (]) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/korrespondenten/bethlehem-im-westjordanland-weihnachten-im-krieg-100.html (2024) ] (]) 09:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Edit Request - remove poorly sourced content ==


:An English-language source: . ] 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting the removal of the following line from the article: "Yasser Arafat, then the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), unilaterally replaced the predominantly Christian city council with a leadership that was largely Muslim."


== section 'Modern era': Biased sources and inaccurate information ==
The reason for this request is that the statement is based on poor source, and it does not meet Misplaced Pages's verifiability and reliability standards. The source is an article in an Israeli right-wing website ynetnews, the article was also edited by ], an American far-right website that is notorious for spreading far-right conspiracy theories like the "Obama wasn't born in the US" conspiracy. I suggest either removing the statement or finding a more reliable source to substantiate the claim. Thank you. ] (]) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


Hello, best wishes to you all. Under the 'Modern era' section of the article, there are several pieces of information included that are not factually based or are only supported by extremely biased sources. First, it is claimed that "When the Palestinian Authority assumed control in 1995, it publicly extended the boundaries of Bethlehem, allegedly to secure a Muslim majority". However, the source provided for this claim is a pro-Israel website that argues against the positions of Jerusalem's Latin Patriarch, the Archbishop of Westminster, and other supporters of Palestinian Christians. Often times, the source quotes its own author as sources for its claims, and it does not provide any legitimate evidence for its claim. The author clearly has a pro-Israel viewpoint, and is writing in order to support this viewpoint.
== Edit request - first phrase ==


Second, it is claimed that "According to International Christian Concern, there are reports of Christians suffering sexual harassments, kidnappings, forced marriages, extortion and murder of converts by Muslims and PA officials". However, both sources provided for this claim are blatantly biased and do not present the facts in a balanced manner. For instance, the first source from International Christian Concern portrays the secular Palestinian Authority as "The Muslim Fatah-controlled authority in Judea and Samaria". The usage of the term "Judea and Samaria" in order to describe the internationally-recognized West Bank represents a clear pro-Israel bias in the supposed source. Furthermore, describing the Palestinian Authority as "Muslim Fatah-controlled" clearly ignores the fact that Fatah is a secular Palestinian political party that includes many Christians, including Anton Salman, the former Mayor of Bethlehem. As a result, the claim being made is biased and does not portray the conflict in a fair, neutral manner.
Hi, many people wonder if Bethlehem is in Israel or Palestine, that’s why I liked the previous opening sentence - “Bethlehem is a city in the ], in the ]…”, but I see that it has recently been changed to “…is a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”, which of course is factually correct, but in my opinion saying first thing that it is Israeli-occupied makes it seem like it is Israeli, more so than Palestinian. What about removing the “Israeli” from the first line, only to make it clear it is Palestinian, and leaving the part about Israeli occupation where it is already mentioned, further down? Thank you. ] (]) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, I am requesting for both of these claims to be removed from the page. I appreciate your help with this matter, as well as your interest in keeping the page neutral. ] (]) 05:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

: The claim about extending the boundaries was sourced to WorldNetDaily, which has been deprecated since 2018. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:27, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bethlehem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Good articleBethlehem has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 21, 2016, December 21, 2019, and December 21, 2020.
This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHolidays: Christmas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconChristianity: History / Christmas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconGreece: Byzantine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Fortifications / Middle East / Ottoman / Roman & Byzantine / Classical / Medieval / Early Muslim / Crusades / Early Modern
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Fortifications task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Ottoman military history task force
Taskforce icon
Roman and Byzantine military history task force
Taskforce icon
Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
Taskforce icon
Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)
Taskforce icon
Crusades task force
Taskforce icon
Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edit request - first phrase

Hi, many people wonder if Bethlehem is in Israel or Palestine, that’s why I liked the previous opening sentence - “Bethlehem is a city in the West Bank, in the State of Palestine…”, but I see that it has recently been changed to “…is a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”, which of course is factually correct, but in my opinion saying first thing that it is Israeli-occupied makes it seem like it is Israeli, more so than Palestinian. What about removing the “Israeli” from the first line, only to make it clear it is Palestinian, and leaving the part about Israeli occupation where it is already mentioned, further down? Thank you. 2A00:A041:3B9A:AC00:11E2:7CD6:40A5:1A3C (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we change the introduction to "Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank". This adds clarity to the legal status of the city. Zoozoor (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense
Hello, I see that you reverted the first sentence to include "Israeli-occupied" before West Bank.
-
While this is an accurate description, some of us would prefer it be rephrased, so that the UN legal status of the city (Palestinian) is more obvious to readers who wish to skim the article.
-
I'd like your input on this discussion so we can make an informal consensus about the lead. Zoozoor (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I think the present phrasing is pretty clear and doesn't really create the problem you describe. Remsense ‥  05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Re: this article post-revert:
This phrasing is surprising. Look at the lede for most any other page describing some city, say, Barcelona or Donetsk Oblast. I expect the first link naming the country/region/etc. a city is in to link to the page on that country/region/etc. Using a phrasing like "...is a city in Palestine, in the West Bank" is obviously factually correct and links directly to the appropriate containing region with two useful levels of granularity. Note, for example, that the third paragraph on Donetsk also describes how that region is currently under military occupation in quite some detail: it is and has been relevant enough to deserve that kind of placement. Maybe the opening or the lede of this article deserves more detail about the impacts of this occupation, but that sounds more like an enhancement someone could make than a flaw in what stood.
I think the version in my edit was better on those fronts, so I'm currently feeling like we should just let that version rock, and let anyone so interested improve it further. If you've got any objections, I'd like to see something more constructive than "I think it was pretty clear before" or "I don't feel like this an improvement." Why? nfd9001 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Remsense hasn't responded, and it's been a week. I think it would be okay for you to be bold and restore your edit. Zoozoor (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I still think the present phrasing is perfectly clear, but if others are convinced there's a problem I don't see the need to stonewall. I don't feel there's much to say about it—it's not a big change—I just don't see the problems described above when I read the present wording, sorry. Every article's different, and while the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument here isn't entirely hollow I don't think it's changing my mind. I did try. That is to say, the proposed change is fine; I meant what I said before in that I don't think it's an improvement, but go for it. Remsense ‥  05:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
A reference to the occupation in the first sentence is not needed for the reasons mentioned in this edit summary. In addition, "Israeli-occupied West Bank" is a redundant and tautologous phrase, since all of the West Bank is occupied (that's its deal), and there is no "un-occupied West Bank" to contrast this with. It's like talking about the "wet ocean". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Etymology

'לחם' in any context does not mean food.

'בית לחם' can only mean 'house of bread'.

I wanted to edit it, but since it is closed I can not, so here I am. Hwndqkjep (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - failed source verification

The article includes the line, "Christian families that have lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years are being forced to leave as land in Bethlehem is seized, and homes bulldozed, for construction of thousands of new Israeli homes." The citation, source , does not corroborate this. The closest the article (which is not directly hyperlinked for some reason?) comes is in the paragraph: "Down in Beit Sahour, which is mostly Christian, residents of one housing development have been living under the threat of demolition for more than a decade since an Israeli court ruled its building illegal. The order was frozen but never lifted, leaving families in limbo, wondering if or when the bulldozers will arrive and where they will go if they do. “This is the only place left for us,” says William Sahouri, whose family has lived in the area for more than 300 years. “There are no lands to expand.”"

As you can see, this article does not allege that even a single Christian family was actually forced anywhere. The "lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years" is in reference to a single family, that had lived "in the area", whose presence as far as the article is concerned is still in Bethlehem, and they are not even explicitly identified as Christian. The claim that Christian families are being forced out is not substantiated by the article, for reasons of constructing new Israeli homes or for any other reason.

I request that the article be edited to reflect what the source actually says.

Here is the article: https://www.thetimes.com/article/settlements-choke-peace-in-the-little-town-of-bethlehem-mkczz7vgvvz 2600:1700:67A8:230:43:4E0C:6A70:7096 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is it almost universally agreed upon that Palestinian Christians have had their homes seized and bulldozed in order for Israel to create and expand settlements. Regardless of somebody's political opinion in this area, removing information about the pressure placed on Palestinian Christians by the Israeli occupation would result in a presentation of the conflict that is not based in reality. If your issue is the source provided, there are several sources you can find that describe the theft of Palestinian Christian land and places of living in order to create or expand Israeli settlements. SirCapybara (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Add those sources you found, then. Assuming OP here is correct (I haven't read deeply) , see WP:BURDEN. nfd9001 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request - "effected"

Please can someone effect this change in the lead:

Aspects of life in and around Bethlehem are effected by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. → Aspects of life in and around Bethlehem are affected by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank

Per widely accepted usage, see affect and effect. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed by undoing the recent edit that happened to introduce the error, and I found not to be an improvement regardless. Remsense ‥  02:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

section 'Economy' : dead calm since 7 October 2023

on 7 October 2023, Hamas and other terror groups launched the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. Since then, there is almost no tourism in Israel. Bethlehem haslost two peak seasons: Christmas 2023 and 2024. poverty and unemployment have risen.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/weihnachten-bethlehem-krieg-nahost-102.html (2023)

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/korrespondenten/bethlehem-im-westjordanland-weihnachten-im-krieg-100.html (2024) 178.203.109.225 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

An English-language source: Associated Press. Donald Albury 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

section 'Modern era': Biased sources and inaccurate information

Hello, best wishes to you all. Under the 'Modern era' section of the article, there are several pieces of information included that are not factually based or are only supported by extremely biased sources. First, it is claimed that "When the Palestinian Authority assumed control in 1995, it publicly extended the boundaries of Bethlehem, allegedly to secure a Muslim majority". However, the source provided for this claim is a pro-Israel website that argues against the positions of Jerusalem's Latin Patriarch, the Archbishop of Westminster, and other supporters of Palestinian Christians. Often times, the source quotes its own author as sources for its claims, and it does not provide any legitimate evidence for its claim. The author clearly has a pro-Israel viewpoint, and is writing in order to support this viewpoint.

Second, it is claimed that "According to International Christian Concern, there are reports of Christians suffering sexual harassments, kidnappings, forced marriages, extortion and murder of converts by Muslims and PA officials". However, both sources provided for this claim are blatantly biased and do not present the facts in a balanced manner. For instance, the first source from International Christian Concern portrays the secular Palestinian Authority as "The Muslim Fatah-controlled authority in Judea and Samaria". The usage of the term "Judea and Samaria" in order to describe the internationally-recognized West Bank represents a clear pro-Israel bias in the supposed source. Furthermore, describing the Palestinian Authority as "Muslim Fatah-controlled" clearly ignores the fact that Fatah is a secular Palestinian political party that includes many Christians, including Anton Salman, the former Mayor of Bethlehem. As a result, the claim being made is biased and does not portray the conflict in a fair, neutral manner.

Therefore, I am requesting for both of these claims to be removed from the page. I appreciate your help with this matter, as well as your interest in keeping the page neutral. SirCapybara (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim about extending the boundaries was sourced to WorldNetDaily, which has been deprecated since 2018. Zero 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: