Talk:Beit Sahour

Tax resistance issues

I don't see how the Jordanian administration bit fits in to this section. The Jordanian administration had a tax system that it imposed on Beit Sahour; the Israeli military seems to have held on to some of the same income tax policies as the Jordanians had used. But this history of tax administration doesn't really say much about the Beit Sahour tax resistance, since it was directed at all of the taxes (the value-added-tax / sales tax, the various collective punishment intifada taxes, etc.) and was in particular a protest against the occupation's use of the tax money against the residents of Beit Sahour rather than for them (as they saw it, anyway), not against taxation in general.

It seems to be worded in a misleading way right now, to infer that taxation remained more-or-less unchanged during the occupation/intifada from how it had been during Jordan's rule, which isn't the case (indeed the Journal of Palestine Studies paper you cite shows many changes the occupation authorities made to the income tax law alone).

Perhaps information about the evolution of tax law and administration in Beit Sahour could be moved to a new section about the history of civil government in Beit Sahour. -Moorlock 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my intent to make it sound like the Intifada actions were based on Jordanian tax law, but as it reads now it sounds like the whole institution of the Israelis' taxes were an innovation. Perhaps you can think of a clearer phrasing, though it seems obvious to me that the glass/stone etc. taxes are not referred to in the previous sentence. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences in that paragraph were meant to be representative of a single topic: that the Israeli military had the authority to invent and institute its own taxes, with the "stones tax" etc. being examples of these. -Moorlock 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tax resistance that took place during the Intifada doesn't really have much to do with the history of tax administration preceding the Israeli occupation. What does the fact that Jordan taxed Beit Sahour residents in pre-1967 days and that Israel borrowed some aspects of the Jordanian tax law when designing their own system have to do with the Intifada tax resistance campaign? It isn't as though the tax resisters were claiming that they were resisting because they'd never had to pay taxes before Israel came along.

The evolution of tax law and other law in Beit Sahour during various invasions, occupations, administrations, and so forth may be interesting in its own right, but belongs in its own section. -Moorlock 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that the current phrasing makes the entirety of the taxing look like some aspect of the occupation, when it was indeed unchanged from 1963 to the present decade, not borrowed in part. The only addition obvious from the sources presented are the "intifada taxes" which spurred the tax resistance. I'll try to find clearer wording. TewfikTalk 04:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very pov section not based on reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.95.33 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that one anonymous person saying they think the section is POV and think its sources are unreliable, in the absence of any specific examples or complaints, justifies using the "totallydisputed" tag. -Moorlock 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Viriditas Gilabrand

I think most of your edits were fine, but some of your "POV"-related edits seemed mostly designed to whitewash or to assert a POV, not to make the article more objective, e.g.

  • removing the quote “The military authorities do not represent us, and we did not invite them to come to our land. Must we pay for the bullets that kill our children or for the expenses of the occupying army?” that one of the tax resisters used to explain the campaign. If this were not a direct quote, it would be POV; but as-is, it is a factual expression of how the campaigners on one side of a campaign justified their tactics.
  • Putting "allegedly" before the Rabin quote, which is sourced, is taking an editorial POV on the veracity of that quote without any justification.
  • Similarly, tagging the (also sourced) "millions of dollars in money and property were seized" with a "dubious" tag is also adding an editorial POV without justification.
  • Changing "the military... cut telephone lines" to a passive-voiced "telephone lines were not repaired" is a POV whitewash of the original (sourced) info.

-— (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that you say what it is that bothers you, it can be fixed. I will look at it later, unless you want to fiddle with it. Best--Gilabrand (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Journal of Palestine Studies is published by the University of California Press and is peer-reviewed. What they say does not need to be attributed, they are a reliable source, not just a quotable source. nableezy - 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK guys, I see I am wasting my time. If you want all the Palestine related articles to sound like gibberish and be full of melodramatic sob stories with layouts that are appalling to look at, as long as you get your hostile propaganda across, be my guests. You will not gain anything from it. Since all my work has been blanket reverted, I will leave this article in its idiotic beknighted bullshit state for all the world to see. You are all a bunch of fools. I was dumb to think otherwise.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect people to think of you as anything other than a complete douchebag, try not calling them fools. nableezy - 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you are doing your cause any good with these pitiful excuses for an article, you should think again.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gila, the only thing I said was that the Journal of Palestine Studies is published by the University of California Press and is peer-reviewed. What they say does not need to be attributed. If my saying that makes you think I am a fool, fine, but, again, if you want people to show you any respect and not think of you as a douchebag, you might want to not call them fools. nableezy - 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't responding to that.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should rephrase you are all a bunch of fools. nableezy - 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Sahour

Beit Sahour

"lit. Place of the Night Watch"

Beit means 'house', a better translation would be "house of the night watch".

A better word for 'place' would be 'Mahal'.

While I don't generally recommend relying heavily on Google Translate (or translation software), in this situation it can confirm the correct translation of the word.

1596 data

Hütteroth and Abdulfattah have the following information:

  • P. 115: Bayt Sahur an-Nasara (170/123)
  • P. 119: Bayt Sahur al-Wadi (171/123)

..both would place them in present Beit Sahour.

However, the Clermont-Ganneau -ref is about the place just south of Jerusalem, called Beit Sahur el Atikah on SWP 17, (SWP III, pp. 85-86; Guerin p. 207) it is presently Maquam as-Sahuri, according to Sharon...and it is on 173/129.

Either: Hütteroth and Abdulfattah have a printing error (not unheard of..) and the grid-numbers on p. 119 are wrong Or: there is a completely different place called Bayt Sahur al-Wadi at 171/123, unrelated to Sahur al-Atiqah. I don´t think this is likely.

I would think the first possibility is most likely, especially seen in view of what Mujir al-Din writes about it at the time.

If the Beit Sahur el Atikah-part is to remain in the article, then we need to make it clearer that it is really quite far from Beit Sahur (it is closer to Silwan), Huldra (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Toledano, p. 290: "P.E.F. map has Bayt Sahur al-Atiqa which, according to Palmer, is also called Bayt Sahur al-Wadi" (p. 287). Definitely a grid-typo from Hütteroth and Abdulfattah on p. 119, then. The question remains, though, should we let this part stay in the article? Huldra (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after having thought about it for a bit: I think we should keep the Beit Sahur el Atikah-part in the article, but under its own subheading. It clearly needs the co-ords etc, (can get them from Toledano). I´m starting cleaning up. Huldra (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beit Sahour. 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/20081120152937/http://www.bethlehem.edu/archives/2006/2006_084.shtml to http://www.bethlehem.edu/archives/2006/2006_084.shtml
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724041240/http://www.jai-pal.org/content.php?page=695 to http://www.jai-pal.org/content.php?page=695
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220032249/http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/ to http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220032249/http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/ to http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/

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) 01:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beit Sahour. 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/20070630094514/http://www.elections.ps/pdf/Municipal_Elections_Results_EN_%282%29.pdf to http://www.elections.ps/pdf/Municipal_Elections_Results_EN_%282%29.pdf
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220032249/http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/ to http://www.beitsahour.ps/en/

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) 06:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit Sahour. 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/20090104122925/http://www.pcr.ps/reports/PCR-annual-report-2005.htm to http://www.pcr.ps/reports/PCR-annual-report-2005.htm

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) 09:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Beit Sahur al-Atiqah" DOES NOT BELONG HERE!

@Doug Weller, Zero0000, Huldra, Davidbena, Ramallite, and Moorlock: It has no apparent connection. Settlements which only share similar/identical names, but nothing else, are always dealt with in separate articles. If anyone has proof af any connection in terms of, say, population, please present it. But it is highly unlikely, as a Hijazi tribe and a majority Christian town population usually don't share common roots. So: create new article and link through tag and/or "See also", but please do disentangle these two unconnected sites. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1596 data have:

  • p.115: z169: Bayt Sahur an-Nasara (grid 170/123): Part Muslim, part Christian
  • p.119: z287: Bayt Sahur al-Wadi (171/123): All Muslim

....The accompanying map supports this, with z287 located about 2-300 meters SE of z169.


However, for the (1880s) SWP 17 map we have:

  • Beit Sahûr (Sh. 17, Mu), III, p.29, Palmer, 286
  • Beit Sahûr el ’Atîkah (Sh. 17, Mt), III, 85, Palmer, 287

...where Beit Sahûr el ’Atîkah is located on map 17 as being just SW of Abu Dis, that is, about 174/129, ie 5+ km from Beit Sahour. Note also that Palmer, 287 writes: "The ancient Beit Sahur. Also called Beit Sahur el Wady (Beit Sahur of the valley.)"


So this looks as an ancient mix-up (at least since the SWP times)? Huldra (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1:20K map of 1943 shows small Kh. Beit Sahur at 1735/1295 and large Beit Sahur at 1707/1233. Zerotalk 21:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but - so what? Arminden (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is: a deceased settlement ("khirbet"), deserted for over a century, kilometres away from modern B.S., and what's more important maybe: with no apparent connection to modern B.S., shouldn't be more than a footnote *in this article*; certainly not a large paragraph. None of the other topics here - demography, economy, resistance, churches,... - refers to it. Not even the history and archaeology paragraphs create any connection. If anyone can show that any hamula names connect the two, then a closer connection can be considered. If not, it's just a coincidence, like Kafr Qanna and Khirbet Qanna, although those at least share being identified with "Cana of the Galilee" at different times in history. Qanna in S. Lebanon (part of historical Galilee and not that far away) would never be mixed in into the same article with Kafr Qanna. So, in a nutshell: why perpetuate a 19th-century confusion, just because it's over a century old? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure I understand your question. From the above it looks as if there are three different Beit Sahours: at 170/123, 171/123 and at 1735/1295. The two first obviously belong together (they are only a few hundred meters apart) ....but who has got it wrong: Hütteroth and Abdulfattah mistaking 1735/1295 for 171/123 ....or SWP mistaking 171/123 for 1735/1295? The answer to that might be clear to you, Arminden, but sorry: it isn't clear to me.... Huldra (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hütteroth, Tuthmose III and the Exodus aren't my point. My point is: Beit Sahour is a real, alive-and-well modern town (or quarter of modern Bethlehem if you prefer), with a town map and living population. And it's NOT near Ein Rogel! I am the first to read and study the history of anythig, and/or the name's etymology; but a khirbet only has a history and a name, while a living modern town is first and foremost that what it actually is, not an abstraction defined by its name or history. That's my point. Arminden (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tuthmose III and the Exodus aren't my points, either, but Hütteroth most definitely is. That Beit Sahour is a real and alive modern town (I am not so sure about "well"), we also agree; my point is that I am trying to find out what part of the history which belong here, and what part does not. If both the Hütteroth grid.numbers mentioned (on pp. 15 &19) are correct, do you agree that they belong in the article? Huldra (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Sahur was the Canaanite deity of daybreak. In Islam, it's the man announcing the beginning of the day - and fasting time - during Ramadan. Please check and amend article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"From Rashda in Upper Egypt": meaning what?

Google shows that there is an Egyptian Rashda with a Christian past, but not in Upper Egypt, but in Dakhleh Oasis, in the Western Desert. Dakhleh's archaeology shows Christian traces from C4 to Mamluk time, and has a Coptic community until today. The form of liturgy came to the oasis from Upper Egypt, maybe that's the connection.<ref>{{cite book |Editor= Gillian E. Bowen |chapter= Discussion: Kellis in context. The Christian presence in Dakhleh: Cemeteries; The Survival of Christianity in the Oasis |title= The Christian Monuments of Kellis: The Churches and Cemeteries |series= The Excavations at Ismant al-Kharab |volume= 2 |page= 421 |publisher= Oxbow Books |location= Oxford |year= 2024 |= 1789259649 |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=dSrqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA421 |access-date= 24 February 2024}}</ref>

But local traditions aren't science, that's well known. Unless there's more research done (family & clan names?), we can leave it at that, as local lore. Arminden (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the parochy website offered as 1 of 2 sources, there was just Rashda in Egypt, nothing about Upper E. The Scandinavian book author (the 2nd source) is the source for "Rashda in Upper Egypt". Maybe he improvised and missed, but I can't prove him wrong. He cites Robinson (1997): 72. I found it! I guess the mistake (?) was Robinson's, unless there is another Rushda in Upper Egypt where Copts escaped forced cinversion from. I'll add the original source. Arminden (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"From Kukaliya in Syria" meaning what?

Similar to the one above.

This file (looks like some copy of a published [book]), Dale A(lbert) Johnson (2004). Corpus Syriacum Johnsoni I, ISBN 978-0-557-13734-3, has under "Notes on Syriac Church Music" "Quqlyon (plural Quqalya) "Cycles". These are cycles from the Psalms and follow the eight-modal system." Another Church source has that "[a]ll Quqalya came from Greek".

So is there a misunderstanding or misspelling problem here? Tried out with q, k, ou, i, y, iy, combined every each way... Nothing. IslamicFinder.org however has "Prayer Times Today in Raud el Kukaliya, Syria". But that's it. There is a wadi in Jordan called Rawḑ al Kawkalīyah... End of the road.

Either that wadi was counted as part of Shams, Greater Syria, or there is some (Rawd al-)Kukaliya hamlet in Syria, or whatever.

Very interesting to see how, if the tradition proves to be true, Christians from Egypt, Transjordan, and maybe more northetn parts of Greater Syria migrated to a site close to Bethlehem over the centuries. The Wadi Musa area is known to still have been Christian in Crusader times, nomadic (Bedouin) and I believe settled Christians from Karak moved to Madaba as late as the 19th c., some locals from B. Sahour consider themselves direct descendants of the Christian Ghassanid tribe who were Byzantine clients and border guards of the Empire until the 7th c. Muslim conquest - an amazing mosaic of facts and claims connecting ancient Middle Eastern Christianity with modern times via very unexpected, thin threads, like Christian Bedouin. If anyone is aware of academic research going deeper into this, I'd love to learn about it. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Beit Sahour conundrum

We're back at it. It seems that in the late C19, the village near Bethlehem, let's call it B, was split in 2 by census clerks: Lower B and Upper B.

The Beit Sahour near Jerusalem (En-rogel), let's call it A, much higher by elevation, was called "Ancient" and "of the Valley" (prob referring to Kidron Valley). But we have sources provided by Huldra who seem to refer to it also as Lower Beit Sahour, so "A" called the same way as the lower neighbourhood of "B".

Now we have:

ca. 1600: A (Jerusalem) had 40 Muslim households. Almost irrelevant.

1870 (or 1879, Socin!): A (Jerusalem) had 66 men in 17 houses (Socin 1879).

1870 (or is it 1879?): "Lower B" (Bethlehem) had 190 men in 76 houses. MUCH bigger than all of A.

1883 (Hartmann): WHICH ONE? (now it's under A) had 76 houses. Logic says: it's B (Bethlehem), who had had exactly 76 houses a few years earlier.

1883 (SWP): A (Jerusalem) is an abandoned ruin.

"A" being called the same way as the lower neighbourhood of "B", on top of having 2 other names (Ancient and Valley) is either a mistake of the authors', or a mess created by some Ottoman census clerk based in Jerusalem, for whom A was 40' down the valley, so "Low(er)". To me, the latter option (lazy Turk) seems less likely.

Some disaster excluded, in the 1870s only the soon-to-be-abandoned A near En-Rogel/Jerusalem could have had only 66 menfolk, while not even the lower part of B near Bethlehem taken separately had so few (190 men!). While mathematical logic is not the last word (see Egyptian war wiping out 75% of Muslim men from B near Bethlehem), we know of no major disaster after Ibrahim Pasha, so there's little reason to mistrust the linear logic.

I would move Hartmann's figure (identical to earlier one) from A to B. Any reasonable argument against it? Huldra? Sorry, I know you're very busy.

Then A (Jerusalem) went down from 17 houses in 1870 (or is it 1879, Socin?), to abandoned in 1883 (SWP). Allah alone knows why, but probably escaping higher taxation and being drafted into the army due to modernisation, Tanzimat. Being so close to Jerusalem also meant closer control.

Am I missing something? Can we do this? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beit_Sahour&oldid=1210081965"