Misplaced Pages

This is the revert in question.

Please explain why you removed the following which I did not add: as well as the city where he was anointed as the third monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, and also states that it was built up as a fortified city by Rehoboam, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city

I will note that the above is very due. Bethlehem is world renown for its biblical history and its place in the Abrahamic traditions. Can you please explain why you removed due information that is vital in understanding the role of Bethlehem in the Israelite history as well as for Christianity which has made the city important for billions of people over history. Also if not mistaken this is not a recent addition, certainly not by me and it is due.

. InDuring the 1967 Six Day War, the cityBethlehem was capturedoccupied by Israel during the Third Arab–Israeli WarIsrael. Since the Oslo Accords, which comprise a series of agreements

Here I agree that it merits discussion and is not strange however this is not a recent addition by me. Also there is merit to state that there are shared agreements between Israelis and Palestinians that dictate the state of Bethlehem.

following persecution by PA officals and muslim officals.

Please explain the removal of this info. Following your removal it appears Christians only suffer from Israeli settlements, whilst sources provided clearly state that Christians suffer from Muslim and PA persecution which is significant. It is important to maintain both parts in order to accurately reflect the reasoning of dwindling of the Christian population which was in the 1960s about 80%+ and now less then 12%. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, a very important figure in Christianity and also for Muslims. Bethlehem's prominence arises from its role for Christians and therefore it is WP:DUE to explain the reasoning behind their dwindling. However, if you wish to remove the reasoning then remove the entire section for NPOV. I think it's due to keep, but it has to be comprehensive and reflect both.

When reverting Makeandtoss I should have restored partial self rv and put the Israeli occupation under international law section in modern history paragraph.

You also removed a sentence in the body which is backed by sources and is also not in lead unlike your edit summary it is not in the lead:

David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem.

Why is this controversial? It is well known and merits mention in the body?

You also removed the image to the right, which is not in the body and is an image of a Hamas rally in Bethlehem. Why is this problematic? Perhaps you'd wish to add a picture of a Fatah rally in Bethlehem as well if its problematic in your eyes to show only Hamas. But again it's not in your edit summary and I did not add this picture and from a short look in history it was in the body for several months (I did not look far back so maybe it was there for years).

Overall I saw you removed a lot of very due important information, also information which is not present in the lead was removed (David originating from Bethlehem and the image of the Hamas rally in Bethlehem). Can you please explain the removals?

I was puzzled by this response to my remark that a paragraph in the article was too long and detailed. Are you confusing me with another editor who put the article in a bad condition in the past? I have never edited a passage in that article to say that there had been a mass surrender. Or as you put it, "pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯ Assuming the article "pushed a lie" in the past, what has that got to do with me? Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it was a statement on the general state of the article, not an assignment of blame. When things get added and they are emphatically pushing one specific POV it isnt a problem, when that is corrected with reliable sources that show that POV to have been effectively propaganda that was inserted as though it were objective fact, then it is overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, but that is not what you said. You said, "Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" That was in response to my suggestion that the paragraph be written in summary style, not that anything specific be added or not added. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was in response to the suggestion that the inclusion of material that showed the previously included material to have been bogus is what has made things overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the totality of what you were responding to: "Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight." By "conveyed here" I meant the entire "surrender" issue, not one aspect or another aspect of that issue. The article is very long and detailed and excessively so in my view. Sometimes things get ungainly during editing and we try to boil it down. However, if you feel the article should go into that detail on that point, if you feel it is not excessive, then simply say so. I am not familiar with what the article said in the past on that subject. I just don't have that frame of reference. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, like I said it wasn’t meant as casting blame on you, just a reflection on how the editing goes here. Burst of edits adding very POV material, later edits to fix that POV make things too bloated. But fair enough, you meant the overall topic and not just the addition on how the initial reports were bs. nableezy - 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Please don't clog other editors' talk pages with long missives on article content concerns; take it to the article talk page where all editors can weigh in. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)