Talk:Bethlehem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jesus born in Bethlehem?

The article says, quite correctly, that modern scholars question the Gospel account which has Jesus born in Belthlehem. The article cites multiple sources to support this. Attempts to amend this to "some scholars" smack of pov-pushing. Please stop.PiCo (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you're claiming that ALL scholars universally reject Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace? All of them? Really? But you accuse me of POV-pushing? This is getting very tedious, as well as a bit surreal. Clearly not everyone thinks the same thing on this subject, so why not just say that? GBRV (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What I said above was "modern scholars question...". I think that's pretty reasonable. Perhaps you're misreading it.PiCo (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Pico's phrasing is reasonable and accurate.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing it as "Modern scholars" - as if all of them think the same way - is just another variation of the "universal agreement" idea. I've changed it to "many", which ought to suffice. I'm flabbergasted that you would claim that everyone thinks the same way on this subject. If that's not what you're actually saying, then "many" should convey your intended meaning. GBRV (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028195852/http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729182700/http://www.bethlehem-city.org/English/TempVewMenuSub.php?Mid=6 to http://www.bethlehem-city.org/English/TempVewMenuSub.php?Mid=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224085148/http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=21059 to http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=21059

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

IPA Arabic pronunciation: Arabic pronunciation: [beːt.laħm] MartinKassemJ120 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bethlehem.ps/cultural_sites/towns_in_bethlehem/7.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bethlehem.ps/cultural_sites/natural_heritage/tqoa.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321000427/http://www.bethlehem2000.org/main.html to http://peterfriedlander.org/no-room-for-christ-in-bethlehem/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Errors and Anti-Semetism

Bethlehem is in Israel not Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthedarkwolf (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109171903/http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/jerusalem/land/timeline2.html to http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/jerusalem/land/timeline2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019123102/http://www.med-voices.org/pages/showresource.aspx?id=1206&lang=0 to http://www.med-voices.org/pages/showresource.aspx?id=1206&lang=0
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69g20diZC?url=http://www.bethlehem-city.org/TwinMain.php to http://www.bethlehem-city.org/TwinMain.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy in first sentence

The intro currently reads "Bethlehem [...] is a Palestinian city located in the central West Bank, Palestine, about 10 km (6.2 miles) south of Jerusalem." Is it necessary to say "Palestinian city in Palestine"? It seems redundant and tautological, especially since both are piped to State of Palestine. I'd like to cut it down to just "Bethlehem [...] is a city located in the central West Bank, Palestine", but I want to make sure this doesn't somehow change the meaning of the sentence. Smurrayinchester 08:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214165615/http://ncm.birzeit.edu/new/page.php?page=branches to http://ncm.birzeit.edu/new/page.php?page=branches+

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

The link for footnote 21 doesn't work. Change http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1+Samuel+16:4%E2%80%9313:4&version=nrsv to http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1+Samuel+16:4%E2%80%9316:13&version=nrsv

The link for footnote 22 doesn't work. Change http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=2+Samuel+23:13%E2%80%9317:13&version=nrsv to http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=2+Samuel+23:13%E2%80%9323:17&version=nrsv MarcM1098 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: This seems to be an issue with Template:Bibleverse. This seems to be a longstanding issue with the template from 2017. I have changed the links to a different translation, which partially fixes the issue. Danski454 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Note: A fix to the template has been implemented. Danski454 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Modern situation in Bethlehem

The lede of this article, right now, prattles happily about the chief economic activity being tourism and it peaking at Christmas. No kidding. Apart from mentioning hotels, handicraft workshops, a Jewish shrine, and control by the Palestinian authority since 1995, it doesn't have anything else about the current situation in Bethlehem.

Buried deep in the article is a single sentence which mentions that the current situation in Bethlehem is that it is now encircled by 170,000 settlers and cut off from the other Christian holy city Jerusalem by the Israeli West Bank barrier. There is no mention of the effects of this on the dwindling Christian community in Bethlehem, apart from narrating how Palestinian militants sought refuge in the Church of the Nativity and were later removed from there.

I'm looking at an article in the Times newspaper from 24 December 2013. It's a double page spread, with photos of -- or rather, mostly from -- Bethlehem. It's entitled Settlements choke peace in the little town of Bethlehem. It talks in some detail about how Bethlehem is encircled, describing it as "hemmed in on all sides". It has a quote from Bethlehem's mayor saying that "our little town has become even smaller due to the continued expansion of Israeli settlements". It goes on to describe Christian residents living in the area for more than 300 years, who now live from day to day not knowing when Israeli bulldozers will arrive -- their building has been ruled illegal by an Israeli court.

The article ends by talking about the Israeli West Bank barrier now being planned to expand further, to separate a Christian monastery from its convent, "separate 58 Palestinian families from their land, encircle the convent school teaching 400 children", and so on. The conclusion is that, in 2013 anyway, Bethlehem was being turned "from a living city to a museum piece" as local families were forced out.

This reality does not seem to be reflected, actually only barely hinted at, in the current article. Not mentioned at all in the lede.

Is it the case that the situation has now changed, and this Times article is now outdated, and foresaw things that did not happen? If not, should the modern reality for Bethlehem be reflected in the Wikipedia article about Bethlehem? MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Tumbleweed? OK, if there's no further feedback other than through Wikipedia's Thanks mechanism, I will start adding material to the article to make it more balanced. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Indeed, you are free to edit this article (be bold). The section is somewhat outdated and there are sources I added myself long ago that need to be replaced by better ones. No objections as long as the new material is relevant, neutral, objectively written and supported by reliable sources. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Al Ameer son, good to see you. And thank you, I will be a little more bold later. Just starting off slowly because I am no expert in the modern aspects of this topic area, and am also aware of its potentially inflammatory aspects. MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

E this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> }} 24.98.88.250 (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Above, where it is said this article is of interest to "WikiProject Christianity/ History/ Christmas", it places this article of mid-importance. Should this not really read "Top Importance", as Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem? Vorbee (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Strange statement

In this article it says: "Bethlehem is believed by most Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth". I would like a reference to show evidence that there are a group of Christians who do not believe Bethlehem is Jesus' birth-place, otherwise I think the sentence needs to be re-written and should simply read: "Bethlehem is believed by Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth." --121.45.174.163 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a strange statement. There are many Christians who don't take the Bible absolutely literally, even the gospels of the KJ. It doesn't necessarily have to be a particular "group" of Christians who don't believe that Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus, it just needs to be enough, spread throughout the different denominations, to make this true. I did only a very quick google search on a string of words related to your comment and found this: [1]. There are probably many more examples. Don't forget that a lot of "Christians" (in polls, surveys, studies) in the Western world aren't "practising" Christians and probably haven't even thought about whether Jesus was or was not born in Bethlehem. Their lack of "belief" on that particular point is enough to make only "many" Christians the believers of that particular fact. In any case, "many" is the best way to avoid "prescribing" a belief to a religion that has been practised for so many centuries, over so many continents, with masses of variation inbetween. Maedin\^talk 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What about "Bethlehem is attributed to be the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth"?? That was there is no question as to the beliefs of Christians or how many Christians or how beliefs have varied over the years (although I've never heard of anyone contesting Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus). Additionally, the idea that *early Christians* interpreted the Micah 5:2 passage as a prophecy of where Messiah would be born is inaccurate; it was the Jewish biblical scholars of the day who advised Herod the Great that Bethlehem in Judea would be the birthplace of Messiah - the whole reason early Christians understood the verse that way is because the Jewish scholars understood it that way prior to the birth of Jesus. After all, it was King Herod who consulted the Jewish scholars in order to answer the query of the magi, "where is he that is born kind of the Jews?" LynnMaudlin (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a strange statement, even under your logic. We can debate it all we want, but if you use the same reasoning as "evidence" for other statements in this writing, then most of the facts stated, are not facts, they are beliefs based on the writer's reasoning. This article seems to be riddled with innuendo and beliefs. Stevenjohnmcd1 (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Country that Bethlehem resides is Israel NOT Palestine

Palestine is not recognized as a state by Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the European Union, among others. Israel is the properly listed country Bethlehem resides. Please update the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Massallen (talk • contribs) 21:29 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Statements in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. The statement that Bethlehem is in Palestine is supported by citations to two books. In order to change that statement you would have to produce reliable sources that state that the city is in Israel, and then convince the community that such sources outweigh the existing cited sources. - Donald Albury 03:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Rachel's Tomb

Not only Jews, but also Christians and Muslims consider Rachel's Tomb as a holy site, see Rachel's Tomb. Has to be corrected (2x).--AllIC (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

The following template should be added (when updated), since Bethlehem was the Arab Capital of Culture (check the article) in 2020

121.175.81.12 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 07:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Modern Era

Banksy mural in Bethlehem

Bethlehem has brought visitors, pilgrims and activists from all over the world ZaBanker (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Huldra (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong sentence

There is a wrong sentence in the introduction: "The church was badly damaged by the Samaritans, who sacked it during a revolt in 529, but was rebuilt a century later by Emperor Justinian I." As Justinian I reigned from 527 to 565 (according to his Wikipedia article), it must be necessarily wrong. It seems the wrong word is "century" because the revolt is correctly dated. According to the Bethlehem municipality website, "Afterwards, in 529, the Samaritans rebelled against the Byzantine state and overran the country, plundering and destroying as they went. Churches and monasteries, towns and villages were all pillaged or gutted by fire. The walls of Bethlehem and its main church were destroyed. The revolt was soon quelled. At the same time, the church was rebuilt in a grand style." So the correct sentence should be something like "The church was badly damaged by the Samaritans, who sacked it during a revolt in 529, but was soon rebuilt by Emperor Justinian I." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11koyo11 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Bethlehem is not in palestine, It is in Israel. Palestine isn't even a state, nor recognized as a state by most modern nations nor the UN who defines palestine as a "watcher" 5.29.38.227 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Non Factual parts and biased vocabulary : Israel does not expropriate land in Bethleem from Christians, but takes land outside of Bethleem

There are many non factual or biased vocabulary in some parts of this article. - Israeli enclaves don't 'squeeze' Bethleem they surround it. Opinions should not replace facts. - "Bethlehem is seized, and homes bulldozed, for construction of thousands of new Israeli homes." Unsupported. There is no home bulldozed, there are no Israeli homes built in Bethleem; especially not thousands. There is no Israeli population inside Bethleem. If you refer to the larger Bethleem governorate, this sentence should go on the appropriate page Bethlehem Governorate and refer to the Bethleem Gorvenorate, and not Bethleem.

"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." : Not supported by facts.

The causality of Palestinians leaving Bethlehem because of Israel is non factual. Actually Palestinian Muslim population has increased and Palestinian Christian population has decreased since the Palestinian authority has taken control of the city in 1995.

The facts are that : 1- A study by Pew Research Center show that Palestinian Christians were more likely to emigrate from the region than any other religious group. 2 - there have been incidents of violence against Palestinian Christians by the Preventive Security Service and militant factions.

Opinions on causality should not be published as if they were facts when no credible research support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Baldensperger

I don't think that a 19th century writer who claims of a whole large groups of people "The Fawaghré were formerly burglars" and "the Christians are cowards, and, being of a mercenary turn of mind, rather stingy" is reliable enough to be here. Later in the article he tells a tall story about a pair of illicit lovers caught in the act: "They now brought both lovers and laid them face to face on each other, and in this position cut both heads off with one stroke of a sword." In other articles, Baldensperger refers to the Palestinians as "Philistines"; should we cite that too? I'm going to delete it if a convincing counter-argument is not presented. Zero^talk 12:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm ... when I checked it, I didn't read on from the quoted passages. But yes, not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Age matters, if there is anything to this, it will be found in later RS. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

The article is filled with subjective opinions and factual misinformation, written as a propoganda article not fit for Wikipedia. For example, this article claims houses were demolishes for roads, that is not true! 92.253.30.138 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No edit requested, no sources given, not done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - Amarna reference

I think we need to change the definitive statement "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." and the section "The earliest reference to Bethlehem appears in the Amarna correspondence (c. 1400 BCE). In one of his six letters to Pharaoh, Abdi-Heba, the Egyptian-appointed governor of Jerusalem, appeals for aid in retaking Bit-Laḫmi in the wake of disturbances by Apiru mercenaries:[14] "Now even a town near Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a village which once belonged to the king, has fallen to the enemy... Let the king hear the words of your servant Abdi-Heba, and send archers to restore the imperial lands of the king!" - to something more neutral as reading the original bīt-nin-urta in the tablet in question as Bethlehem is without parallel, to my knowledge, and by no means accepted without objection.

The passage above is referenced to Jerome Murphy-O'Connor who in turn quotes W. F. Albright as "but now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king [...]" Amarna letter no 290. The original tablet, EA 290, does, however not say bit-Lahmi, but bit-nin-urta (or nin-ib, in an alternative reading). 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 laternative 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."

Ido Koch writes (Ido Koch (2016) Notes on Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-Amarna Correspondence, Tel Aviv, 43:1, 91-98, DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2016.1161369) "The identification of Bit-NIN.URTA has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, much of which involves attempts to understand the appearance of the name of a Mesopotamian god in a West Semitic toponym. While the use of the Mesopotamian god Ninurta’s name was not common in the Levant, it did occur, as can be seen in an identical toponym (É dNIN.URTA) that appears in another el-Amarna tablet (EA 74: 31) and in a personal name (EA 84: 39 – mÌR-NIN.URTA). Attempts to identify Ninurta with a local god have resulted in a massive debate. Correlation between Ninurta and Horon, Anat or Ṣur have been suggested,6 but consensus has not been reached (Finkelstein 2014: 268–269). It appears that the West Semitic parallel would likely feature some characteristics exhibited by Ninurta (Kallai and Tadmor 1969: 138, 140)." - note that Koch does not even mention the Lahmu hypothesis.

I have just run into this issue as somebody inquired about the identification of Bethlehem in Amarna letter 290 and even a very casual inspection of the text of this tablet shows that the identification of bit ninurta with Bethlehem is at best highly dubious - digging a bit into the literature I found the above, I wouldn't be surprised if there is far more. What we have so far is enough, I think, to say: "Bethlehem has been suggested as a reading for the place-name bīt-ninurta in one of the Amarna letters (EA 290), but said reading is very uncertain and has been rejected by multiple 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 significant objection (I personally think it's complete bunk driven by wishful thinking, but that's neither here nor there).

In closing, here's how 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. 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) 22:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

There is NO State of Palestine. 2601:600:C980:25AB:631A:5DB7:4A30:99DA (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

State of Palestine explains its limited recognition. However, this idea lacks the precision and consensus to be an actionable edit request. Certes (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mayor of Bethlehem

The previous Mayor of Bethlehem (Anton Salman) is listed as Head of Municipality while the incumbent Mayor is now Hanna Hananah according to the city's official website (www.bethlehem-city.org/en/members-of-the-municipal-council). I would make this edit myself, but the protected status makes this impossible for me. Someone should get around to fixing this. 72.74.154.179 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

etymology

If it was mentioned in the Amarna letters, then it wasn't derived from Hebrew because Hebrew didn't exist then. Zero^talk 02:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As the article also notes in the first paragraph of the history, the term used in that correspondence is also Bit-Laḫmi, which does not fit neatly with either of the fairly dubious modern Hebrew/Arabic "etymologies" at all. Definitely merits further exploration of reliable sources - that it dates to the Egypt-Canaan phase must mean it has roots either in or before then. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Altogether too much weight seems is resting on the 2010 De Gruyter publication, which was also misdated as being from 2018. This collection of inscriptions is in no way an in-depth scholarly analysis on the subject, but despite this is cited alone to discount the longstanding Lahmu/Lahamu theory as "generally rejected". This is not only a very casual dismissal of past scholarship, but not obviously accurate, as this etymology is certainly still in active currency in scholarly circles, as various examples, such as this 2016 academic paper (page 219) attests. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: hi, I came here to write exactly this, so thanks for doing it already. A full year has passed though and nobody even took notice of it. A shame. Arminden (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Abrahamic traditions"

Sorry to state the obvious, we don't have WP:ABRAHAMIC, we have WP:LEDE: which states that the lede is a summary of the body; the lede isn't a cherrypicked collection of information, especially not information that overblows importance of, quite possibly, mythical 2,000 year old events. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The Very first line - neutrality

Unnecessary modifier "Israeli occupied". This is activism or narrative. Wikipedia rules are to be neutral. The geographic area of "West Bank, Palestine" is fine. You don't need to say "israeli occupied", as this part is no different than the rest. The whole West Bank can be argued as being occupied. Some people say Gaza was occupied, though israel says they left in 2005. Remove reference to Israeli occupied to adhere to Wiki rules Sfdoctorp (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The West Bank is occupied by Israel. That’s a fact. There’s no such thing as neutrality in facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole West Bank is occupied and the occupation is highly relevant to the city of Bethlehem. nableezy - 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be moved to another part of the lead, specifically the modern era part. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Its in the area where it is talking about the location, which is where it is relevant. nableezy - 15:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

On neutrality, again

User Dovidroth in this edit has again removed and/or reintroduced content that was rejected in the two previous discussion sections at this talk page. Moreover, he also deleted the content that I had added in this edit without offering any justification for that removal. Potatín5 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, above you can see a discussion on this. Primarily it seems regarding the removal of long established Christian and Biblical history. Also on removals of other more content, some more recent. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m not edit warring, thanks. I didn’t even see the discussion sections. This page is on my WL, I saw a batch revert to a bunch of unrelated items (including a number of *clearly* non-controversial edits) and requested the user make individual edits and outline specifically which items are controversial and relegated to talk.

Can you please then outline for me how *every single* edit that was reverted was controversial, please? Otherwise, restore the edit and and remove what you consider to actually be controversial. Mistamystery (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

They already have been outlined up above. If you dont even look at the talk page you cant tell people they should be on the talk page. nableezy - 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction - I looked at the ToC of the talk page and nothing seemed to indicate (nor still does) there was an outlined dispute regarding each of the edits made. Mistamystery (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

last revert

Regarding this revert, there were several issues I will enumerate here:

• Silent removal of status as Israeli-occupied
• 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 overweight on religious dogma that isnt accepted as historical fact, and even if it were well past due weight for ancient history in the lead
• n the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city (addition of the Gospels) unnecessary specificity in the lead, New Testament is fine by itself
• In 1967, the city was captured by Israel during the Third Arab–Israeli War from During the 1967 Six Day War, Bethlehem was occupied by Israel., yes it was captured, but that doesnt really say much about what happened since, which was it was occupied, which is considerably more relevant
• full in Palestinian control, while Area A does give the PA civil and security authority, the IDF still retains control over all of the West Bank and can and has entered Bethlehem at will, so saying it is under their full control is inaccurate to the point of being dishonest
• following persecution by PA officals and muslim officals forgetting the spelling and lowercase "muslim", that is not what sources say about the loss of Bethelehem's Christian population.A 2006 Zogby poll found that 78 percent of the city's Christians say they're leaving because of Israeli occupation while only 3.2 percent attributed it to the rise of Islamic movements. What was presented was a distorted view of why Bethlehem's Christians are leaving
• Hamas picture in local government section: Hamas is not the local government of Bethlehem, it makes no sense to include one rally for a group that is not in power as though it were representative.

nableezy - 16:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I made these edits and I have the same reasoning. The way they were indiscriminately reverted is not a good indication. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems the Zogby poll is the only one to have interviewed Bethlehem Christians specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth ignoring the talk page is not an accepted reason to edit war in disputed material that distorts the sources. Kindly stop. nableezy - 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding comment from talk pg of Nableezy for clarity:

Hello Nableezy I saw you reverted me on Bethlehem, therefore removing very important information, some if it has been in the lead for years (for example, biblical mentions). In your Edit Summary you said: Rv unexplained removal of occupation and undue weight in lead for additions I added the removed sentences and image.

[2] 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.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

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?

A Hamas rally in Bethlehem

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? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery it is unacceptable to edit war in contested changes, I laid out the issues with this edit above, you can’t just force them in. Please self revert and seek consensus for your change. Or I can revert you instead. nableezy - 12:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever I just reverted it. Please follow WP:ONUS as I have very clearly laid out the objections to this edit above. nableezy - 12:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's long established content. Please see Wikipedia:Content removal. There is no consensus for removal, please explain yourself in respect to the arguments presented. Until then due to the particular importance of significant Christian and Biblical history removed which is part of the reason Bethlehem is known around the world and important for billions, I suggest you revert these removals.

Furthermore, you removed content which was backed by sources in the body. Why was King David being from Bethlehem removed? It was sourced. Please explain the removal. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true, you added it between December 7 and 10th, and it was immediately challenged on December 11 and then edit-warred in by yourself, then Dovidroth, and Mistamystery all without even a token effort at discussing and seeking consensus. And I have listed the issues with the material above, something you have not engaged with at all. But please dont misrepresent this as long-standing content when it is provably not. nableezy - 14:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the version prior to my editing in 7 December [3] prior to saying "That is absolutely not true". Also please read my comments prior to answering like this. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Where does that include it has dwindled significantly following persecution by PA officals and muslim officals. misspellings and all. Where does that include who held priests and nuns hostages and plundered the church's coffers, it was subsequently sieged by Israeli forces until a deal was reached., which is the exact opposite of what reliable sources report on what happened (eg The Guardian). Where does that include Christians have reportedly suffered persecution under the Palestinian Authority, leading to emigration. which is directly refuted by sources saying that it is the Israeli occupation responsible for the emigration? Where does that include The seizure of Christian land by Muslim mafias and the bias of the Palestinian Judicial system have been cited as reasons leading to emigration. which again is directly refuted by sources on the reasons for emigration? And hello, the first comment in this section is me explaining all the changes. Something you have, once again, completely ignored. nableezy - 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote:

It's long established content. Please see Wikipedia:Content removal. There is no consensus for removal, please explain yourself in respect to the arguments presented. Until then due to the particular importance of significant Christian and Biblical history removed which is part of the reason Bethlehem is known around the world and important for billions, I suggest you revert these removals.

I'll explain the meaning. It means I am suggesting you revert the removal of long established content from before 7 December. I also specifically explained what was the issue - Christian and Biblical history.

There is also an image of Hamas which was established prior and removed, however I think it is more urgent to restore Christian and Biblical history due to its weight.

Thank you for your time. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ive already said what is the issue with every part of the revert. Do you have any response to those issues at all? The Biblical history is given undue weight for mythology that is not supported by scholarship as fact. We dont base our articles on the Bible. nableezy - 15:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that these mytholodgies are important enough to be included in the lead since it is of interest to 2,000,000,000 people on Earth at least. It is the reason Bethlehem is so famous! Homerethegreat (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to the extent of content removed, I'll open discussions specifically on each topic. That way it will be easier to follow and take separate decisions. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I was asleep when you wrote this btw. Would have self-reverted. Mistamystery (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. nableezy - 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding wikilink under Climate

The page is understandably protected, so I can't add a link to Khamsin in the phrase "...annual waves of hot, dry, sandy and dust Khamaseen winds from the Arabian Desert..." Subvisser5 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

The Christian population in Bethlehem got reduced through the years as for Muslim constant attacks of Christian homes and Churches. The freedom to pray and worship is limited for Christians in Bethlehem, due to the daily abuse and their submission to the Palestinian authorities. The Israeli police assisted Christians that were attacked many times by their Muslims neighbors. Many Palestinian Christian needed to flee or relocated as for the threats and violence that was used against them by local Muslims. 209.42.34.249 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2023 (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. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)