Talk:Bethlehem

Christian community

Do we have any sources with surveys that report on explicit reasons of the community's dwindling numbers? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The article says that the Christian community has dwindled due to difficulties attached to the Israeli occupation. Gosh, since when are the Israelis giving a hard time to Christians? The scuttlebutt is that actions by some Muslims have caused a Christian exodus there. --- Vitruviuspolio (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians by Muslims and Palestinian authority officals

Opening discussion regarding whether and where this should be included in lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Current paragraph:

While it was historically a city of Arab Christians, Bethlehem now has a majority of Arab Muslims; it is still home to a significant community of Palestinian Christians, however it has dwindled significantly, mostly due to difficulties resulting from living under the Israeli occupation. Presently, Bethlehem has become encircled by dozens of Israeli settlements, which significantly hinder the ability of Palestinians in the city to openly access their land and livelihoods, which has contributed to the exodus of Palestinians

Is rather heavily NPOV, doesn't reflect persecution and discrimination against Christians by the Palestinian Authority and Muslims. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Also doesn't reflect following explaining Muslim majority, which happened also due to when the Palestinian Authority taking control in 1995, it reportedly expanded the boundaries of Bethlehem, allegedly to ensure a Muslim majority. This enlargement resulted in the inclusion of more than 30,000 Muslims from nearby refugee camps into the city. Yasser Arafat, at that time the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) also unilaterally replaced the predominantly Christian city council with a leadership that was predominantly Muslim. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the boundaries of a city is not persecution. VR _talk 01:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also doesn't reflect hardships faced by Christians from PA officals in the judicary system, negative behaviour, attacks on churches and christians etc... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources show that the Christians of Bethlehem blame the Israeli occupation for their wanting to leave the city, you put in a highly distorted view of the causes of their emigration. See for example: Allen, John L. (2016). The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution. Crown Publishing Group. pp. 125–126. ISBN 978-0-7704-3737-4. Retrieved 2023-12-19. Yet most Arab Christians living in Israel do not describe their situation in glowing terms. Samer Makhlouf, a Catholic and executive director of One Voice, a grassroots movement in Palestine that brings together young Palestinians and Israelis to promote peace, says that of the four problems facing Christians in the Holy Land, the first three are "occupation, occupation, occupation." Makhlouf described Israeli military and security policy as "the father of all the problems in the region." That perception seems widespread. A 2006 poll by Zogby International found that in the city of Bethlehem, 78 percent of Christians said that Christians were leaving the city because of Israeli occupation, while only 3.2 percent attributed the Christian exodus to the rise of Islamic movements. what you put in the article was, again, a highly distorted portrayal of why the Christians of Bethlehem are leaving. When the overwhelming majority is leaving because of the Israeli occupation and you claim it is because of Muslim oppression you are distorting the record. nableezy - 14:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see following sources:

Clearly, Christians in Bethlehem suffer from both factors. It would be NPOV not to mention it. If the writing is problematic we can have the following: "Christians in Bethlehem suffer from persecution from Muslims and PA officials. Their share of the city has fallen since the Palestinian Authority enlarged the city to encompass surrounding Muslim villages. They have emigrated, citing mainly the Israeli occupation." Homerethegreat (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Any further responses? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV not to include it in the MOS:LEAD? Kire1975 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You haven't said what is NPOV about that paragraph. Kire1975 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Removal of Christian history and Biblical references

Opening discussion regarding whether and where this should be included in lead. Spefically following sentences:

 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.

Regarding biblical and Israelite history of the city in relation to king David, Also the following:

 Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city

This is in reference, explaining that the gospels say Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Furthermore, the removal of King David originating from Bethlehem in the body:

 David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem. 

Homerethegreat (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Also following was removed:

At the northern entrance of the city is Rachel's Tomb, the burial place of biblical matriarch Rachel. Movement around the city is limited due to the Israeli West Bank barrier.

Homerethegreat (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

All of that is mythology, and this is an encyclopedia not a place where we regurgitate some book of myths. Imagine using claims from the Quran for Jerusalem. nableezy - 14:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You need only look at Mecca page and you have sentences such as these:

Mecca is revered in Islam as the birthplace of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Hira cave atop the Jabal al-Nur ("Mountain of Light"), just outside the city, is where Muslims believe the Quran was first revealed to Muhammad.

The Great Mosque of Mecca, known as the Masjid al-Haram, is home to the Ka'bah, believed by Muslims to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael. It is Islam's holiest site and the direction of prayer (qibla) for all Muslims worldwide.

---

But that is not the point. The point is Due weight information was removed from the page, also info that is attributed and sourced by secondary sources. You removed it because it is mythology in your opinion, but faith and beliefs can be given weight and attributed especially if it is the reason Bethlehem is so significant for the largest religion on Earth - 2 billion people.

Just add an attribute to the Rachel's Tomb bit for example and that solves the issue.

In another case you removed the attribution of Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city.

In another case you removed info with secondary sources regarding David's origin from Bethlehem, it was also written with the word "considered" (therefore not designating as fact).

And regarding the 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.

There is enough secondary sources that support Judah's rule over Bethlehem, and also simply attribute - according to the bible if this the big issue.

King David's origin and annotation in Bethlehem is also part of the importance of Bethlehem to Christians. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That should not have been removed at all. SageSolomon (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding all the text or some specifically? What do you think? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources for this, it can be added to Bethlehem#Other_religious_festivals (under the section on religious significance). We must mind due weight, though, as Bethlehem is mainly known for its religious significance in Christianity. VR _talk 01:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed since Bethlehem is mainly know for its religious significance in Christianity, it is due for relevant info to be in the lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey any further responses? Homerethegreat (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede is a summary of body. what not including random information just because you think it is relevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas rally image in Body

Opening discussion regarding whether and where this should be included in body. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This image: :

A Hamas rally in Bethlehem

Homerethegreat (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The image reflects political activity in the city of Bethlehem and therefore I do not see why it is not due to be included. If NPOV is an issue one can add an image of Fatah rally no? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn’t not reflect political activity in Bethlehem, Hamas is not the local government in Bethlehem and it is unrepresentative to feature that image. nableezy - 14:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we have both a picture of fatah and Hamas? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we have Likud rally pictures on the Tel Aviv or Jerusalem articles? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, you can check. We're talking about Bethlehem here though. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't have it. Hamas is not a major force there as far as I know, so it gives a wrong impression. Zero^talk 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Christian community

"By 2016, the Christian population of Bethlehem had declined to only 16%. The Christian population's proportion of Bethlehem fell from 87% in the 1950s to 12% in 2016."

This is what the page states now. Unless I'm missing some obvious technicality the text claims that in 2016 Christians were both 12% and 16% of the population. This conflicting info should be explained or corrected. 2A02:2F07:C212:C200:E850:9BF5:9425:887F (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - Amarna reference

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.

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.

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.

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):

"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."

BTB, Wikipedia's own article on the letter has bit-Ninurta, as it should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_290, line 15

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."

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.

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! MikuChan39 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2024 (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/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_290) makes reference to a town bīt-ninurta which has been read as Bit-Lachmi by scholar W. F. Albright [ref.] 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 [Nicolas Blincoe, Bethlehem, biography of a town, end of chapter 1]"

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 Wikipedia 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. MikuChan39 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)