Talk:Bethlehem/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The town of Bethlehem of today did not exist 2,000 years ago, FACT, the town of Bethlehem in the bible is far to the north, in Galilee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.220.190 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to start by thinking about what are we exactly talking about when we refer to Bethlehem? Most of the entries have mentioned, history, religion, biblical figures who contributed somehow to its historical and religious significance, Architecture and buildings, current politics..etc. The whole definition of the city is - in my opinion- so incomprehensive and it gives the reader a stress on some of the facets overlooking the rest – which is numerous - of the spatial aspects of the city. Its like someone describing an orange for you saying its juicy with a bit sweet sour taste, forgetting the shape, the colour, the tree, the seeds, the smell, the season, the nutritious value, the juice, the variations, the living environment, the leaves of the tree, the blossoms, the colour of blossoms, their smell, the way it reproduces, the orange market, the way oranges are preserved, and what other products can be made out of oranges ……etc. What I think is essentially missing: is approaching Bethlehem from a spatial perspective, which means, 1- “Spaces” including architecture styles, traffic, Environment, transportation, regional connectivity, location, geography, history of architecture, built up fabric, green structures (vegetation), paths and streets, public spaces, refugee camps, …etc. 2- “Social Issues”, who’s living there (People), religions, welfare, families, traditions and costumes, social services (housing, medication, schools ..etc), history of migration from and to the city, life style, cultural life, night life, entertainment …. etc. 3- “Economy”, Agriculture, Income, businesses, tourism, production, institutional services, employment, GDP, savings, banks, …etc. 4- “Politics” borders, power and control, local administration, participation, regional and national administration, law, individual freedom, democracy, occupation, PNA, Israel, political parties, flow of people and goods, mobility, …etc. Therefore, I believe personally, that the portions of information about spaces, not only Palestinian but also world wide should be balanced on WIKIPEDIA, so to give the reader and the viewer a more comprehensive view about cities rather than limited and directed to some aspects. This will limit misinformation and perpetual dispute.

---

I moved this paragraph here:

Prior to the 1948, several Jewish communities were established in the corridor that connects Jerusalem and Bethlehem, known as the Gush Etzion block. The block was overrun by Arab riots of 1929, and ruined completely by Jordanian (then Transjordanian) forces in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

To start with, what corridor? The Ezion bloc is south of Bethlehem, which is, in turn, south of Jerusalem. In 1929, there was one settlement there, so it was not a bloc (and there is no k in bloc either). Also, you don't "ruin" a settlement. You destroy it. You remove it. You evict the people and lay ruin to it. Whatever. Not ruin.

Finally, a general note. Yes, the Intifada is raging, and Bethlehem has been in the news recently. However, Bethlehem has been an important city historically long before Sharon, Arafat, or the Ezion Bloc. It was the birthplace of David and of Jesus. It has a remarkable church with Byzantine and Crusader components. As a matter of fact, to the Crusaders, this was the most important site in the country after Jerusalem. While I do not denigrate the importance of the Palestinian uprising, I think that this article should better reflect the city's history over the past 3,000 years, instead of concentrating on the past three years. Danny

---

By the same logic, I'm also moving the following paragraph here:

After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has, as it claims, restored old Jewish communities, and built many new ones as settlements. Settlements are off limits to Palestinians and can only be occupied by Jewish citizens of Israel. Palestinians claim that they prevent the urban development of Bethlehem and severs it from some adjacent Palestinian communities. Palestinians refer to the settlements as colonies. See Israeli settlements for a complete discussion.

Without the previously-removed paragraph, which set the context for this one, it seemed totally inappropreate where it was.

uriber 15:36 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Zero0000, no one said that all the people inside the church were gunmen. where DID YOU get that idea? i have added some links for you that use the word "gunman" from a wide variety of sources, including the New York Time, Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, etc.

---

Under second Intifada the article says: "In 2002, it was a primary combat zone in Operation Defensive Shield, a major military offensive by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), in response to numerous Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel."

In this time of generally accepted terrorism almost everything exploding is called a suicide bombing. It's rather a political statement than knowledge resulting from a thorough, non-partisan investigation. I therefore suggest to say "in response to numerous alleged Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel." or to drop the second part of sentence altogether and let it end at ((IDF) - which I implemented. Everybody would then be free to seek more information about the "Operation Defensive Shield" and its context, which, can't be described correctly in one sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.74.217 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be in the wrong here, but I have an itch about the image attachd to this article. the Wikipedia is trying to stay out of politics and be as neutral as possible, yet this image is showing a current political affair (though a very painful and enraging subject) with the "security wall" around the west bank, passing near and through Bethlehem. Now we are talking about a city with thousands of years of history, a major religious center, lots of churches and archeology... and the best picture to convey that is a 10 metere concrete wall? Could we consider to take this image to the seperate wikipedia entry it deserve (and it certainly does!), but this is not what this city deserves to have representing it. --SeeFood 19:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This is the first time I opened this article and this strikes as a pure propaganda. Are we going to slap such images in all articles describing cities along the barrier route? Moreover, are we going to have such images in all articles next to barriers/walls/fences around the world? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There are much better images in de:Betlehem and pl:Betlejem. I'm not sure how to xfer images from one wp to another, so someone w/ a bit more expertise...have at it. I can translate the captions for you from both articles, if necessary. The German article's image caption says "New buildings in Bethlehem", and the Polish article's image caption says "Entrance to the Church of the Nativity"... Tomer ^TALK 20:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

We do need images like the Church of the Nativity and the Mosque of Omar, yes. We also need images that illustrate the current situation. I inserted one that is more specific to Bethlehem than the previous one. I took it myself. The fact that Israel has turned Bethlehem into a large prison by walls and barbed wire is one of the principle components of life there today. --Zero 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Zero, get off your high horse. This is not a blog or a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that there's a picture of that stupid wall somewhere in the article, and agree with the image Zero chose, as well as where it's placed (although I think it would look better on the right, but that's not really worth fighting about)... At the same time, I think the image that was there before was just -- wrong...not only was it a lame picture, but giving it prominent placement is a political statement. I don't mind political statements, but they don't belong in articles, unless they're in quotes, and being made by someone other than WP editors. That said, if someone is in Bethlehem (Ramallite maybe?) and could take pics while you're there of a few of the historically significant sites, they'd make a great addition to this article. Tomer ^TALK 21:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Zero that life in a cage has become an integral component of our lives, Bethlehemites included. It seems to me that Tomer agrees to the more recent picture and where it sits in the article, and I think given the subheading, it's fine. As for myself, I haven't been to Bethlehem in many months for the same reason I haven't been to Nablus, it's just not worth the hassle (used to be 20 minutes, now it's 3 hours). The time before last that I was in Bethlehem, the soldier at the "containers" checkpoint asked for my backpack, and in front of everybody else in the taxi, just took out all the items one by one and threw them to the ground. Therefore, no way in hell I'd take a camera with me. But I'm sure there are pics on the web and I'd be happy to look them up. The only traveling I do lately is to the Jordan border (which is just as unfortunate - being in Jordan that is - but it's the only way in and out of Palestine). I'll see if I can find some photos later on, I think Tomer's suggestion that the article would benefit from them is a good one. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, checkpoints and barriers cause inconveniences. Unfortunately, some soldiers are negligent, pushy or tired. Unfortunately, some users prefer to use WP talk pages as a soapbox. Let's keep perspective: the checkpoints are there in order to save innocent lives. Israeli kids, just as any other kids, should be safe from bombers in their busses, shopping malls, cafes and discos - and if it takes a barrier around Bethlehem and Ramallah, so be it. Your anger is misdirected, but I guess it is more convenient to blame Israel rather than HAMAS & Co. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL... okay! Ramallite ^(talk) 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in Bethlehem with a camera last July and can provide a couple more photos. It might take me a little while. --Zero 03:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are some photos. Feel free to move them into the article. --Zero 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The church image looks to me like it might be the wrong way round? Palmiro | Talk 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No, all these images are definitely the right way around. I took these photos less than 2 months ago and remember the layout very well. --Zero 02:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd. I have no memory of a bench on the left of the entrance. Oh well. 66.198.41.24 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of images of this place on the web and they all show that bench in that position. --Zero 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I believe you! It just surprises me that I would misremember it like that. Palmiro | Talk 18:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I used one of the pictures in a slight re-organization, I hope that's ok. I also hope somebody can help find a nice panoramic view of Bethlehem, and I will actually look through some personal albums (which I forgot I have in my parents' house) to see if I find something nice (all the pictures I have were taken before the ugly wall ruined the landscape) - but it might take me a few days. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zero or Ramallite, or anyone really, do you know enough about this Mosque of Omar (which is currently a redirect to Dome of the Rock for whatever reason) to write something up on it? Possibly even an article of its own? Tomer ^TALK 23:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag, please stop pushing your POV. The population of Bethlehem is almost entirely Palestinian, it is in the West Bank which is generally described as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, it is in historic Palestine, it is not claimed by any other state, and it is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. If that doesn't add up to a "Palestinian city", God knows what would. This has nothing to do with Palestinian sovereignty, and nobody ever claimed it did. If you can't justify your edit, which is causing widespread disagreement, then don't make it, and don't resort to misleading claims that this represents consensus reached somewhere else when it's blatantly obvious that that is not the case. Palmiro | Talk 17:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop pushing YOUR POV. The population of New York City is heavily Italian, does that make New York City an Italian city? Most certainly not. No one is disputing its location in the west bank or the current holders of control of the city (PNA). I'm just stating fact that there does not exist a UNIVERSALLY recognized state and sovereign territory of Palestine. At best, Palestine can refer to an ethnic group of people. Hence I wanted to add that it was a city and inhabited by a majority of said ethnic group, but some users found this unacceptable. And since saying that it is a Palestinian city is a blatant lie, because there is no such thing as a UNIVERSALLY accepted state of Palestine, I believe that the phrase should be stricken (both my version and that of the opposition) until a consensus is reached as per WP rules. 69.111.190.174 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A consensus? This has never been a problem. Bethlehem is inhabited by Palestinians, run by Palestinians, and recognized by ALL even Israel to be a part of the Palestinian territories. The same goes for Nablus, Ramallah, Gaza, Khan Yunis, and Jenin. Maybe cities like Jerusalem or even Hebron to an extent could be disputed here on Wikipedia because of the present circumstances in those localities. However, Bethlehem is indisputably Palestinian just like Tel-Aviv is Israeli. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand its geographical location, its current ethnic population, and the group that currently governs said city. None of that is being debated. All I am stating is that there can be no Palestinian city because there is no Palestinian state (universally accepted). Allow me to quote Websters dictionary for the entry titled 'city', "An incorporated municipality whose boundaries and powers of self-government are defined by a charter from the state in which it is located." And since there is no Palestinian state, it can not be said to have such a charter from a state. 69.111.190.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a Palestinian state recognized by over 100 countries. That doesnt matter here though, the link is to Palestinian people, this is a description of its inhabitants. I realize that you seem to think that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are in fact in Israel, but they are not, and that is a simple fact baked by thousands of sources. Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in every sense of the word. Please do not continue making these controversial edits repeatedly. nableezy - 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For every source that can be found stating those areas are not in Israel, another source can also be found stating it is in Israel. 100 countries is not all countries, therefore it is not universal. The country I am in does not accept the existence of a palestinian state, as many others do not either. The very next sentence depicts the governance and culture of the city, it should be left at that. Please do not continue making these controversial edits repeatedly. 69.111.190.174 (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What the country you are in does or does not accept is not an issue here. This article is not here to represent an extreme right Israeli POV. nableezy - 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I might further note that while Israel has objected to characterizing the city as "Bethlehem, Palestine," (which is how it is described per the Palestinian POV) the "Palestinian city of Bethlehem" was seen by their official representatives at the UN as an acceptable compromise wording. [1] So this is this actually a very NPOV description. Tiamut^talk 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider mentioning that Palestinians view it as forming part of Palestine? The Palestinian POV of how a Palestinian city should be described is relevant, no? Tiamut^talk 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a segment in the article professing that some researchers consider Bethlehem in Galilee as being the place that the New Testament refers to when describing the birth of Jesus. Since the gospels of Luke and Matthew both specifically place the Bethlehem they refer to in Judea, I question this paragraph, and would appreciate some kind of validation. If there are indeed some serious scholars who back a claim similar to the one made in the article, I am still sure that rephrasing it would be necessary to correctly describe their oppinion. /Dcastor 01:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the gospels are always right?... Nonetheless, my appologies for adding no source information. Start with this: [2], which is the research of the archaeologist from the Israel Antiquity Authority. This is new data, and can also be found in brief at Bethlehem of Galilee. There was also a pretty good article on this topic in the November/December edition of the magazine Archaeology, which is published by the Archaeological Institute of America [3]. I'll add the paragraph back in. If there is further debate, please add it here, rather than deleting the information. Many thanks! Hiberniantears 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, I didn't just delete the information. I posted my question above, and after getting no response I deleted in accordance with my doubts. I waited two days, maybe I should've waited a bit longer. Secondly I am not (here and now) arguing that the gospels are always right, but when discussing what the gospels are referring to, they are obviously a primary source for information. It is obvious that the NT does not refer to Bethlehem in Galilee, but to Bethlehem in Judea. This said, one can of course, like this Israeli arcaeologist, claim that the NT is mistaken. Personally I find the argument in the links provided very weak, but they do indeed support that some researchers find Bethlehem in Galilea as a propable place of birth for Jesus. I will try to edit the segment to better correspond to the facts. /Dcastor 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dcastor. I concur with your edit, and appreciate the effort you've made. Hiberniantears 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• User:71.10.178.202 - Please do not revert the Bethlehem in Galilee section. If you wish to discuss changes to it, please do so here.

Hiberniantears 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the characterization of this article as being about the "West Bank territory of Israel". If anything it is the "West Bank territory OCCUPIED BY Israel", which is more accurate. The West Bank is not an internationally accepted/acknowledged part of Israel. It is only (erroneously and illegally) claimed by Israel.

The introductory article sentence should be altered to correct this egregious misrepresentation.

Does anyone have a self-taken or fair-use image of the Tomb of Rachel, the third holiest site in the world for Jews? It's is vital to have a picture of this on this page for the aforementioned reason. Valley2city 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this article actually protected, or should the vprotection tag be removed? I still see edits by unreg'd users. Bgold4 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to what parts of this edit are unbalanced and inaccurate, and suggest how to repair that? Tewfik^Talk 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources are quite partisan and outright misleading. Every accusation about corruption or theft that they say is aimed against Christians is actually aimed towards the entire population, regardless of religion. So some Christians were shot by the police, okay, but so were some Muslims - the report purposefully and deceitfully fails to mention that. Same for title deed falsifications. Bethlehem is a mixed city, and it's very easy to focus on a particular group of people and pretend that bad things that are actually happening universally are only happening to them. So these sources are quite misleading. As I've said before, this is Wikipedia, not Arutz Sheva. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what Arutz Sheva has to do with anything, as I referenced reports from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Ariel Center for Policy Research, and The Jerusalem Post. They are all Israeli and may certainly be partisan to an extent, but they are not less reliable than the numerous Palestinian think tanks that are often cited. It may be true that some of these things happen to others as well in this mixed city, but it isn't the Muslim population that has shrunk. No one is building churches in Dahaishe or harassing Muslim women. Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how to present this information? Tewfik^Talk 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed a previous attempt to include similar information, but based on the Daily Mail, in an article which is certainly not friendly to Israel. Tewfik^Talk 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...which is why it wasn't reliable; we can't have articles that are not friendly to Israel :) I'm curious which "numerous Palestinian think tanks" you are referring to that are often cited? Because there are some that deal specifically with the Bethlehem story. And you are clearly following partisan lines because you seem misinformed: The Christian population may have shrunk, but the entire Palestinian population has experienced mass migration in the last few years to escape the conflict and economic blockade since 2000. If a population is a minority to begin with, then it's decreasing numbers are more noticeable. Nobody is building mosques at random either, and harassment of women, when it occurs, is not religion specific. If these reporters wanted to find Muslim women who were harassed, they could easily have found them too. And that's the problem: I'm looking at these reports from a scientist's perspective, and the lack of a "control" group, and the gross generalization and sloppy partisan propaganda-style conclusions are very problematic.

I'm curious why it is so important to you to point out what it is you're trying to point out about certain citizens of Bethlehem? Of all the things you can contribute to make constructive entries into Wikipedia, why focus on (misrepresented) data from Bethlehem? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate your need to view things from a scientific perspective, but do you know of many similar issues that do make use of controls? Whether legitimately or not, there is much press dedicated to treatment viewed as unique to the Christian part of the population. If you'd like to present reports with different conclusions then that would be very interesting (though I doubt that any "side" by definition will be lacking "gross generalization and sloppy partisan propaganda-style conclusions"). I would pose the question to you of why you feel that these citizens of Bethlehem wouldn't warrant focus, as after all your explanations, the fact that there is indeed a demographic shift stands. Tewfik^Talk 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against the existence of population shift, but along the same lines, there has been a steady population shift from males without mustaches to men with them (i.e. the proportion of men who choose to grow facial hair has risen a lot). Who made the Christian/Muslim distinction an issue when it really wasn't previously? Was it the Palestinians themselves? If not, then the motives are suspect. However, I digress. The point is that, this is an encyclopaedia, and one needs to use a certain amount of intellect to decide what sort of random reports out there are of encyclopedic value and what are merely blog entries or news headlines. For example, there are plenty of articles describing the discrimination of non-Jews in Israel or of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, with Palestinians being evicted from many places. What are your thoughts about including such reports in the Jerusalem or Nazareth Ilit articles, for example? Is that encyclopaedic? There is no right or wrong answer, I'm just wondering what you would think belongs in an encyclopaedia.

Oh, and I disagree with your statement that you doubt any "side" by definition will be lacking gross misrepresentations. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have much to add to Ramallite's comments here. I could talk about it at length, go off hunting for Palestinian Christian sources indicating that the Palestinian Christians of Bethlehem are being driven out by Israeli-imposed restrictions and discriminatory practices and the economic effects thereof, etc, (and there's no shortage of such sources), but I really don't see that there's anything to be gained from it.

However, I was surprised by one of Ramallite's comments as I was firmly under the impression that there was a distinct demographic shift away from moustaches towards all other categories of facial hair (full beard, goatee, clean-shaven), and that this applies as much among Bethlehem Christians as among others (except that the shift towards full beards is rather less common). Palmiro | Talk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to those insisting on including a source that mainly talks about Islam vs Christianity through the centuries, and makes unsupported arguments and contextually false representations on the situation in Bethlehem: I suppose you all are familiar with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. What this should mean in an article like this is 2 things:

1. Your arguments portraying a certain bias must themselves be presented neutrally. In other words, you will not present the musings of a partisan source as fact, but properly attribute it to the author or journal.
2. If you are working here in the spirit of NPOV then you will be responsible for editing neutrally, i.e. providing both sides of a contentious issue. Therefore, if the links used as purported "sources" in the "Demographic change" section must stand, it should be expected that, in order to show good faith, the editors who add this stuff must also add data from the following (much more reliable) sources (because they are written by people who LIVE there or have actually BEEN there): one, two, three, four (this one has some fodder for Palestine haters, so enjoy) and five. Again and again I must emphasize that this is an encyclopaedia and not a "fuck Palestinians (FP)" forum. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to paste every single news clip - or opinion article - that has anything bad to say about Palestinians automatically to its pages. Why must people like Shamir1 always feel the need to make sure any negative story (even if false or unproven and does not meet the criteria for WP:RS) about Palestinians be automatically inserted into an encyclopaedia?

Ramallite ^(talk) 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramallite, I realise that this is sensitive (do you really think the "Fuck Palestinians" comments add anything though?), but I (and Shamir1 by extension) have added three respected, if inherently partisan sources (2 Israeli journals and a Jerusalem Post feature), and not "every single news clip - or opinion article - that has anything bad to say about Palestinians". However I would encourage you to review the sources that you've requested be put in, since most of them ("because they are written by people who LIVE there etc.") do seem quite partisan, and some have 'gross inaccuracies' (ahem) which throw into serious question any credibility they might have had (like the Novak piece, 2 & 3). It is quite telling that the one which you caution as having "fodder for Palestine haters" (ie confirming that "a growing antagonism toward Christians" isn't just an Israeli conspiracy) is also the only one from an actual news source (4, from MSNBC). What I suggest is that we all neutrally add RS that explore why the Intifada might have disproportionately affected Bethlehem Christians, and feel free to correct any inaccuracies you believe exist in the passages that I added, but please don't simply remove them. Tewfik^Talk 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I have not requested that any sources be put in. What I was requesting was that people think really hard about why they insist on adding such material here in the first place (what are your intentions?), and if they want to add a section about demography, then they do it neutrally (i.e. use ALL proper sources from all viewpoints). If I couldn't fit both viewpoints (which means almost 50% of the stuff I write is material that I don't agree with or often find reprehensible), I wouldn't write it. There are thousands of reports about how Palestinians are getting treated in Palestine by the Israeli authorities, and I have a daily summary of those in my inbox from highly respected British, Israeli, and US sources. But I don't rush to add those Wikipedia like others do, because WP is not, like I said above, a FP site or FI site. Second, I'm a little tickled that almost each and every response you write to me includes at least one quote from one of my own previous responses thrown back at me with a sarcastic tone. You've done this elsewhere as well. Why do you do that? Third, you seem (in my eyes) to have introduced original research by saying that the intifada might have disproportionately affected Bethlehem Christians, like that is a forgone conclusion. Who said so? Forth, if I wanted to correct any inaccuracies in the passages you added, that by definition would mean removing them (see Zero's comment below), since they are pretty inaccurate in and of themselves. Fifth, and again as Zero said, this seemingly sudden interest in the welfare of Palestinian Christians by anti-Palestinian activists on Wikipedia (and I am not accusing you of being one, only you know if you are or not) is grossly disingenuous. Sixth, all evidence shows that Christian immigration is by far the result of Israel's occupation, so if you really want to add a section about demographic shift, please be a good editor about it. I am constantly wondering why, in people's psyche, supporting one party has to automatically mean screwing the other (which usually results in FP editing), and have always expected you to be above that. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise if my quoting yourself back to you comes off as sarcastic. My only intention is to ensure that you see the specific points that I am directly addressing, as there is a tendency to get lost in these wordy discussions. As for the passage, I used readily accessible RS for my claims, to which you are welcome to add opposing claims or to alter if you believe they are somehow lacking context, but I don't see why you would remove them. I also don't understand how presenting sourced RS that relate to this topic would be FP, nor how presenting sourced RS that relate to Arab citizens of Israel or Nazareth Illit would be FI (however you must realise that some of the links that you provided are not RS for this topic). As for the intifadah disproportionately affecting Bethlehem Christians, I did not introduce that into the article, but was rather responding on Talk to a claim that I thought you were putting forward - forgive me if I misunderstood. Something else that I hope I am misunderstanding is this constant questioning of intentions. While you make sure to say that you don't think that I am an anti-Palestinian activist, you precede that by talking about their sudden interest in this article, and being that it was my edit that is being discussed and which was readded by Shamir1, I can't imagine who else you might mean. There's really no reason for you think that anyone is trying to screw you or anyone (except for maybe the Palestinian Christians

). All the best, Tewfik^Talk 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the survey here is somewhat exaggerated, and I have no reason to believe it is, it indicates a serious problem with the inserted material. (My opinion: It is worth asking who bothers with this question and why, since Israel (to put it bluntly) has never shown the least interest in the welfare of Palestinian Christians. The answer is that it is aimed at the most important supporters of Israel: Christian Americans.) It is a fact that Christian Palestinians emigrate more often than Muslim Palestinians but to blithely infer that Muslim Palestinians discriminate against Christian Palestinians is an abuse of logic. What about the different socio-economic status of Christians (middle-class on average), their higher than average education, and the mere fact that they are Christian (which allows them to get easier admission to Western countries)? In recent years the Christian community of Bethlehem was also severely effected by the Israel-enforced separation from the large Christian community of East Jerusalem which it is entwined with in many ways. It is also worth noting that, whoever is claiming that Muslim Palestinians discriminate against Christians, it is hardly ever Christian Palestinians. Eg., Fr. Firas Aridah, Catholic priest of Aboud: "Israeli propaganda claims that Christians are leaving the Holy Land because of Muslims. That's simply not true. It's because of the occupation. That's the main problem in Palestine. It's not the Muslims. It's Israel. It's the occupation." (National Catholic Review, Dec 22, 2006). Another quotation, from Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, Pastor at the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem: "Though there is no covert persecution of Palestinian Christians, they face the same trials as other Arabs and Muslims in Palestine, due to the current policies and actions of the Israeli government and to the current “war on terrorism.” (Sailing Through Troubled Waters: Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land, Dialog, vol. 41 (2002), 97–102.)" Here's a more academic source:

In a statistical analysis of the reasons given by Palestinian Christians for emigration, the Palestinian Christian sociologist at the Pontifical University of Bethlehem, Bernard Sabella, concludes that Palestinians leave because of a lack of economic and educational opportunities. Palestinian Christians are particularly vulnerable because they tend to occupy more middle-class occupations and have a higher educational achievement. Sabella contends that the notion that Islamic radicalism per se has brought about Christian emigration is unfounded according to statistical evidence among different surveys. -- Leonard Marsh, Palestinian Christianity – A Study in Religion and Politics, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. 57, No. 7, July 2005, 147–166.

That source also notes that some writers see "a growing antagonism toward Christians, based on an attempt to redefine Palestinian identity in Islamic terms" and that "such misgivings and conflict have encouraged Christians to more firmly assert their identity as Palestinians". --Zero^talk 11:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fr. Firas Aridah is just the tip of the iceberg:

The issue of Christian emigration has long been politicized and has been used as leverage against Israel in the Western media. The Holy Land and its Christian indigenous population galvanizes the interest of worldwide Christianity and therefore has international significance. Local church leaders hold Israel responsible for the intifada and the consequences that lead to the emigration of their flocks. Reports in the Arabic press of East Jerusalem give the impression that direct pressures are applied by the State of Israel in order to limit the Christian population. These accusations are echoed in reports by international and Western church organizations that send delegations to Jerusalem to study the issue. The claim that the problem was created by the Israeli occupation is accompanied by apprehension that if the situation continues there will be no Christian presence in the holy places and the Holy Land. (Daphne Tsimhoni. Christian Communities in Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1948: An Historical, Social, and Political Study, p. 30. Praeger Publishers, 1993.)

This discussion really belongs to Talk:Palestinian Christian. Beit Or 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following section

The Bethlehem Passport was developed by Open Bethlehem in partnership with the city council and the governor of Bethlehem. Pope Benedict XVI became the first recipient of the Bethlehem Passport when he accepted the citizenship of Bethlehem from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in December 2005. The passport citation reads: In that the bearer of this passport is a citizen of Bethlehem; that they recognise this ancient city provides a light to the world, and to all people who uphold the values of a just and open society; that they will remain a true friend to Bethlehem through its imprisonment, and that they will strive to keep the ideals of Bethlehem alive as long as the wall stands; we ask you to respect the bearer of the passport and to let them pass freely.

The notability of the Bethlehem Passport is dubious; even if it's notable per se, it doesn't belong in this article. Beit Or 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not take it as good faith when the material being inserted has been pointed out as being inappropriate by at least 3 editors, but is nevertheless re-inserted "as-is" with a "NPOV it yourselves" attitude. A good editor would present it neutrally from the start. Insisting on doing it this way is not just insulting, but also disturbingly malicious. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained that I do not see it as nonneutral, but I have invited you to change any aspect which you find to be a problem, and the discussion will continue from there. You cannot expect me to make the changes for you, especially when all I've presented is sourced to RS, regardless of whether you agree with them. I have no idea what is either insulting or malicious about that - that is how collaborative editing functions. The only thing that I could have added but haven't is the angle of the general economic effect being magnified on the Christian population, but you seem to have objected to that, and in any event I don't have the time to put such a section together at the moment. I am willing to work with you on this, but you must also be willing to work with me. Tewfik^Talk 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is counterproductive to use this section to push a POV assigning blame on Palestinian Christians' leaving Bethlehem on the Palestinian Authority (many of whose top level people and advisors are Christians anyway). The section was okay with just stating that the Christian population has been decreasing (I don't see why it should be pointed out, since it's not just the Christians who are leaving, but anyway, fine). But in adding a few sentences that don't even mention what Palestinian Christians themselves know is (by far) the main cause or even the only cause - the effects of the occupation - you have opened the door for a lengthy rebuttal. So I ask again: Are you sure you want to start a finger-pointing section like this? What purpose does it serve? You have not convinced me of its value here. Whether it's "sourced" or not is not the point, nor an answer. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you say that all you've presented is sourced to RS. First, they are not all RS, and second, you have not honestly portrayed these sources but have selectively picked certain phrases that suit a certain point of view even though they were taken out of context in some cases. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have more than once asked that you make sure everything is in context if that is your concern, as I recognise that different eyes will see different things. I'm not sure what you think isn't an RS, but I welcome discussion about that. As for finger-pointing, I have also said several times that discussion of how/why general hardship may have affected the Christian population out of proportion to the rest of the population would be a welcome addition, but I don't see this as a general bashing of one side or the other. The specifics of the PNA (Fatah & Hamas) relation to the Christians as well as the Israeli relation to the Christians are both relevant. Tewfik^Talk 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my concerns at all. I pointed out before that when you say things like "discussion of how/why general hardship may have affected the Christian population out of proportion to the rest of the population" (excuse the direct quotation), you are introducing the original research that this is the case, when there is no proof of that. In other words, you are talking about this notion of disproportionate hardship as a forgone conclusion, but who said so? Second, my eyes are not the problem, but your understanding of the situation in Palestine or Bethlehem seems a bit off. This is evidenced by your statement about the relation of the PNA to the Christians, where the fact is that this is not one group versus the other; the PNA (Fateh and sometimes even Hamas) is comprised of both Christians and Muslims. The Palestinian ambassadors to the US and the UK are both Fateh Christians, for example. The current Palestinian minister of tourism in the Hamas government is Christian (from Bethlehem). So I am having a hard time blending what you (and at least one of your sources) are saying with reality. You are arguing with me about my own country, mind you, and are making forgone conclusions about things that don't necessarily exist - at least not in the way that you are trying to portray. Therefore, please read my question to you above (what purpose does this section serve) but take a step back before you answer: instead of starting with a false forgone conclusion, please convince me that there exists a disproportionate hardship for Christians to begin with, before convincing me that it's worth describing this hardship. I apologize if I wasn't clear before and I wait for your response. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That there are Christians in the PNA does not mean that it does not have an official relationship with different groups, and does not mean that its rule cannot allow for abuses against those or other groups (official or not). As for the "discussion of how/why general hardship may have affected the Christian population out of proportion to the rest of the population", I understood that you were making the case that rather than having anything to do with any religion-centred problems, the demographic shift (ie the proportion of Christians leaving was greater than the proportion of Muslims) was due to some other reason. I can agree with you that there may be more than one factor, but if you are not saying that then excuse my misunderstanding. I did not however create/add any OR regarding this or anything else. And I wasn't saying anything was wrong with your eyes, but rather appreciating that the article can only benefit from an (your) additional point of view. Tewfik^Talk 04:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See, again you are implying that the PA's rule allows for abuses against Christians, (or so I understand, am I correct?) I will agree that the PA's rule (or actually, lack of rule since they don't really 'rule' anything) allows for abuses, but stating that it's of Christians in particular sounds like OR to me. Where do you get this notion from? That there are Christians in the PA does not mean that the PA's rule cannot allow for stoning gypsies either, but there is no evidence that gypsies are being stoned or being singled out for stoning. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the PA itself has singled anyone out, but I have presented sources that discuss abuses in Bethlehem targeted against the Christian community in particular that occurred during PA rule (or 'lack of rule' if you wish). Tewfik^Talk 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What your sources do (assuming they are all reliable) is describe general abuses that have occurred in Bethlehem but then interview Palestinian Christians that have been targeted but not Palestinian Muslims. It goes without saying here that the fact that most of the "Christian abuse" arguments in your sources are referenced back to Israeli government or Likudist institutes is sadly hypocritical. But anyway, back to the point: these abuses that your sources describe, according to the sources themselves (or their references, I looked) go look up Christians specifically, interview them, and write an article about how the chaos has been affecting them. But they would get the same responses regardless of who they interviewed, regardless of religion. If you look up the references of that Jerusalem Institute article, for example, you would see that there are abuses to the entire population, but the writer of your article specifically chose incidents that occurred to people who just happened to be Palestinian Christian, and then turned his article into an ugly anti-Palestinian rant. That is why I would find such a source against WP:RS, because tracing back to the original references do not necessarily paint the same picture. If you insist that this is RS, then whatever you take from it should be attributed only to the author of that article and not be presented as fact, something I said before but you failed to take heed. Lastly, I don't see a tie between these "abuses" you describe and "demographic shift" (what an ugly header by the way, wouldn't you agree?). The sources talk about Palestinians leaving (and that the Christians, being a minority, are more noticed when they do leave), and they talk separately about abuses and chaos, but have not actually identified any situation (that can see) where a Palestinian Christian left because of abuses by Muslims. The only source I can find that ties between Palestinian Christians leaving AND the reason that they left are the materials Zero provided on this page along with that poll that states that "76.4% believe that the main cause of the emigration of 400 Christian families in the past few years is due to the Israeli aggression and occupation, whereas 3.1% only believe that it is due to the rise of Islamic movements. " (note that rise of Islamic movements does not mean abuses). That would be Exhibit A for a section meant to describe why Palestinian Christians are leaving (usually temporarily anyway). Ramallite ^(talk) 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns about the sources are important, but you must realise that your personal analysis does not constitute valid grounds for denying what appear to be academic RS a place in the article, though attribution of unique analysis to sources is fair in such a hotly contested section. While I don't presently have time to review the lengthy journal articles for specific arguments discussing the demographic change as a result of persecution, the Jerusalem Post article does make that argument. I do agree that the title may not be the best one, but I'm not sure what may better represent the milieu which you say exists... Tewfik^Talk 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. I usually don't regard sources as unreliable unless I have good reason to. It's my own 'reliable until proven otherwise' policy. Here, I have good reason to believe otherwise, according to WP:RS rules and not my own analyses. Now you are saying that, although you don't have time to vet your own sources, they 'appear' to be academic to you. Next, you are suggesting the use of the Jerusalem Post source. What part of the Jerusalem Post article do you propose using? And how do you propose presenting it?Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I didn't have time to look for "specific arguments discussing the demographic change as a result of persecution" in the journals - if we change the section title as you suggested, it shouldn't matter. No good reason to question them as RS has been presented, though as I said above, it is appropriate to attribute unique analysis to specific sources. I don't really understand the rest of your comment. I already presented sourced claims, and I invited you to present any counter-claims you feel are appropriate. Tewfik^Talk 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So I take it, then, that if you were to re-add these disputed paragraphs, you would not change a thing? You would still add it exactly as is? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a specific problem with a citation, assertion, wording etc., please say so and we can work together to make this better. Just a few days ago another piece was published on this topic, and so while I am ready to repair any errors you think I may have made, it would be unfair to keep this information out indefinitely. I stress again that I am willing to work with you on what is clearly a sensitive topic, and in that spirit I have changed the title to a more inclusive phrasing, changed a few words, and included more information about the economic reasons for the Christian departure, including the survey that Zero presented. I hope to see your input. Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, there is still a problem with certain phrases that are stated as fact instead of being attributed to the biased (you can admit that I'm sure) author who wrote them. I refer to the nonsensical paragraph about Sharia law etc etc which hasn't even been applied in Hebron for it to be applied in Bethlehem. I encourage you to fix that. For my part (which will have to wait a while longer), a section on Christians that mentions Hamas, Tanzim, Fatah, Sharia, etc but not a word about Israel, checkpoints, economic strangulation, severance from Jerusalem, is like reporting exclusively on a minor thunderstorm that hit New Orleans in early September 2005 without mentioning Hurricane Katrina. It's going to be hard to keep this section from expanding in order to avoid undue weight, which is why I am still uncomfortable with its inclusion to begin with. But sometimes you have to let the monkey piss to prevent the giraffe from vomiting, as - you guessed it - Aunt Shlomit was fond of saying. By the way, she's buried on the very spot where one of the buildings of Har Homa is now located. She "settled" for that plot of land as a burial site, as she always enjoyed jogging on it whenever she happened to be in the "neighbourhood". Ramallite ^(talk) 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cute. I added some words to the "Sharia" passage, but I'm not sure how to better relate this concern which is mentioned in multiple sources (including Zero's survey: 'the notion that Islamic radicalism per se has brought about Christian emigration is unfounded...a growing antagonism toward Christians, based on an attempt to redefine Palestinian identity in Islamic terms'). As for Israel, checkpoints, and economic strangulation, I think you'll have a hard time showing that any of those target Christians specifically, though their negative effects on Bethlehem as a whole make up most of the "Recent events" section. "Severance from Jerusalem" is perhaps a point that could be expanded upon. I trust that together we can prevent undue weight of any POV from being included. Tewfik^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cute huh? Disgusting actually. Anyway, redefining Palestinian society in Islamic terms by a bunch of hooligans is a far cry for "implementing sharia law" which implies actual parliamentary procedures and official declarations - that are non-existent. The quite POV phrasing used by your source is not concordant with the general gist of a reliable collection of other sources at all. And as for showing that Israeli procedures target Christians specifically, I don't think I'll have a hard time. If we can include one non-Palestinian non-Christian Israeli government propagandist (who has many outright lies in his report) as a source on Palestinian Christians, we can certainly include some prominent Palestinian Christian non-Israeli government propagandists as sources on Palestinian Christians as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, all that talk of flatulence, monkey urine, and giraffe emesis has turned my stomach. Anyways, the passage says "[PA] rule... tolerated or promoted the occasional enforcement by religious zealots of Sharia on the Christian population", I don't really see that as implying parliamentary procedures or official declarations, but perhaps you could suggest what should be changed? I would appreciate very much if you could add some other RS, and I 've said as much several times. Tewfik^Talk 08:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry... I said I need some time. Keep in mind, as I mentioned earlier, that I don't consider Yoram Ettinger's article a reliable source, especially as he has misrepresented his own sources. So you may have lowered the bar on WP:RS in that respect. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The section people are arguing about, and a small argument about who is arguing what about it

Since it's considered by most editors to have commented on it to be non-neutral, it probably doesn't belong in the article yet. I've taken it out and copied it below, where the collaborative process can take place without providing non-neutral information to readers. Here it is, folks! The paragraph breaks don't seem to display inside a block quote, but they're there. Palmiro | Talk 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that 'most editors' has so much meaning when three have expressed opposition and two have expressed support, but at least we can discuss it now. Tewfik^Talk 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I make it three to one on the question of neutrality, plus Beit Or who says it doesn't really belong here at all. Palmiro | Talk 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority rule officially promised equality to Christians of the Bethehem area, but at times its corrupt judiciary enabled theft from them, and it tolerated or promoted the enforcement of Sharia on the Christian population. On occasion it witnessed violence such as the 1997 incident where PA Police opened fire on and wounded six Christian residents of Beit Sahour. The forced staging of shootings onto Israeli homes from Christian homes and institutions in Beit Jala as well as Israeli return fire was especially linked to Christian flight.^[1][2]

During his March 2000 visit to Bethlehem, Pope John Paul II urged Palestinian Christians: "Do not be afraid to preserve your Christian heritage and Christian presence in Bethlehem."^{[citation needed]}

The current Hamas government's official position has also been to support the city's Christian population, which it feels can be useful in negotiating with the US, though it has also been criticised for taking steps seen as trying to impose Islam on Christian neighbourhoods. Under Hamas, the Christian population has continued to suffer from a lack of law and order which has left them susceptible to elements that take advantage of ineffective courts and the reality that the often affluent Christian population is unlikely to stand up for itself.^[3]

Should there not be at least a basic map to show where in the world Bethlehem is? How about some links to Google Maps etc? --86.142.18.21 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! I'll see what I can do. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It can hardly be both (see lead) PiCo (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As an Arabic speaker, know for a fact that Beit Lahm is literally translated as the house of meat. Whether it is an Aramaic, Hebrew etc. term than I'm not sure. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lahm is meat in Arabic; lehem is bread in Hebrew. Beit is house in both languages.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While "lachem" is meat in Arabic (written لحم), Bethlehem - bait lechem - was originally named in Hebrew, meaning "house" of "bread." Bread = לחם in hebrew (same three letters in both languages, basically).

Is this a logical and researched course of action? If so, I have changed it. If not, please provide your argument. Perhaps make a section on the name dispute :) -macadamiaman

There should definetely be a section on Etymology in this article. If you could obtain a reliable source or two, please start one. I will help out the best I can. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

actually went back and nowhere does it say Bethlehem's original meaning is actually "house of bread" - rather just the literal linguistic translations into hebrew/arabic. There should be mention that the original intention of the name is "house of bread" as it was likely named in hebrew -- will post back when I find something that confirms this...

well, disregarding a source, what about just applying logic that Bethlehem was mentioned in the bible (old testament) - before Arabic, and in Hebrew - and in the old testament, its connotation was "house of bread," as that was its Hebrew translation?

I just took a look at the History section, and it says something about it being called Bit-Lahmi in 1400 BCE, before the arrival of Jews and Arabs to the area. Seeing this and the fact this article is a Good article, I really think we should gather up some reliable sources and start a comprehensive Etymology section discussing all of this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Hebrew I can confirm Lehem means bread in Hebrew.

Although I'm not religious I recall well one of the main mealtime prayers has "lehem" for "bread" in it (Hebrew: Baruch atah adonay, eloheynoo, melech ha-olam, hamotzi-LECHEM min ha-aretz, or "Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth BREAD from the earth.") See http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Daily_Blessings/Food_Blessings/Over_Bread/over_bread.html for example. (Aside: What little I know of Arabic, it is a beautiful language, so I have no reason to favor Hebrew over Arabic, but as far as meaning but a blood-less meaning if true (bread rather than meat) for the original, bible-mentioned name, would be nice. The original was in biblical Hebrew I believe that would make it House-of-Bread. Or place of bread, since "beit" can be used more broadly like that, as in Beit-sefer (house or place of the book, the word means "school") :-) Harel (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Lehem does mean "bread" in Hebrew (I'm a native Hebrew speaker), but according to the Midrash (the Jewish exegesis of the bible) the meaning of the name actually derives from milhama (war), not lehem (bread), as both words share the semitic root l.h.m. It may be a mispronouncing of Beit Lohem (house of warrior). As for the Arabic lit. - it probably has nothing to do with the reason for naming the place, but it is not surprising that two closely related languages will use similar words to describe two major food substances: meat and bread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.123.61 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In the section on the "Christian minority", there is a paragraph that reads:

During his March 2000 visit to Bethlehem, Pope John Paul II urged Palestinian Christians: "Do not be afraid to preserve your Christian heritage and Christian presence in Bethlehem."^[4]

I'm wondering how this is relevant and question whether its placement alongside violent events that precede and postdate the comment by several years is WP:NPOV. Does anyone object to its being removed? Tiamut 01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, go ahead an remove it if you want. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I added WP Israel because Bethlehem and what goes on there is relevant to Israeli life and Israeli history. A tourist who wants to visit Bethlehem has no choice but to get there via Israel. So what is the problem? Wikipedia is full of articles that belong to both Palestine and Israel projects. --Gilabrand (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that would be like putting a WP Palestine tag for Ashdod (which was formerly an Arab city), or Safad, or Beersheba (also formerly Arab cities). Bethlehem does not have an Israeli population nor is it administered or protected by Israel. Just because Israel is where someone has to cross to enter the city doesn't mean its relevant to Israeli life. Most Palestinian towns are like that, in the sense that people would have to pass through Israel to enter a Palestinian town. Bethlehem surely had a Jewish history and thats why there is a WP:Judaism tag here. Israel briefly controlled Bethlehem, but so did Jordan and neither had any lasting effect on the city. Israel affects the city today but only for Israel's security. I hope theres not a problem and by the way I thank you dearly for copyediting the article. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tomb of rachel in Bethlehem is still under Israeli control, and the project is appropriate, and interested in the upkeep of this article to boot. Please do not use project placements to make political statement on wiki. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work on making WP:GA. Although I still see some minor issues with the article, which could eventually land it back at WP:GAR. I made a minor adjustment to the order of sections (most city articles seem to have history, geography, demographics, then economy, as these sections contain more basic information that is likely to be sought after first).

• The geography & climate section is very short, and probably has a completeness issue there. It's mostly talking about the climate and very little about geography; certainly more can be found here. A subsection should also be included on 'cityscape', which should contain info on the various neighborhoods and parts of town, and how they are connected.

For geography, I know I'll be able to add info on mountains and such and I actually found information on neighborhoods here,

Geography done.

The old centre of Bethlehem consists of an unusual array of towers, belfries, domes, spires, houses of worship of all kinds, as well as red-tiled roofs of monasteries and convents. Along its steep streets and lanes flows the daily life of a market place and its retail shops. The narrow roads of Bethlehem are paved with stone. Some are topped by stone arches supported by house walls from both sides of the street. They fill viewers with a sense of the grandeur of ancient architecture.

Bethlehem consists of six quarters that come together like a mosaic to form the core around Manger Square. Bethlehem's historic haraat (residential quarters or neighbourhoods) developed over the ages and are now a living witness to Bethlehem's long history and its people. Each quarter had a yard (guest-house) where the men of the quarter gathered to chat about their livelihood, businesses, and private matteyrs. The different quarters today represent part of the cultural heritage of Bethlehem. The existing haraat of Bethlehem include Harat Al-Najajreh, Harat Al-Farahiyeh, Harat Al-Anatreh, Harat Al-Tarajmeh, Harat Al-Qawawse and Harat al-Fawaghreh.

Is this what you mean by cityscape? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The museums subsection under culture is just a bulleted list; consider converting this to prose.

Could and will bedone. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The government section gets kind of listy as well, with a table of council members and list of mayors. You could move the list of mayors to a separate, linked article. What about including information here on the municipal courts system, as well as fire & police departments and other governmental services.

I think we should keep the list of mayors as I have compared that section with the mayors section of the good articles Tel Aviv and Ashdod. I tried to find information on the local government services of Bethlehem, but have not been able too find anything thus far. I will look into the Municipality's website to see what I could extract. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's no 'infrastructure' section; should have information on electric generation, water supply, healthcare.

Again I'll try to find information on it. However, out of curiosity, is the information above critical for a good article? By that I mean, could it bring the article back down to B-class? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, good work! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was useful to have the overall vote for the various lists in the election for the municipal council, what I did object to was the re-calculation of the vote after every count, that was unnecessary detail. PatGallacher (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical era section had this sentence:

The name may have derived originally from Lachma, the Mesopotamian god of vegetation and fertility known from the creation story Enuma Elish.^{[citation needed]}

I've removed it per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Bethlehem's biblical history. adriatikus | 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are they? Google doesn't even return a home page. -- Heptor _talk 08:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Check Bethlehem.ps on Google (its the first choice). The Centre for Research and Cultural Dialogue write and manage the website. Here's the link about them[4]. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no persecution of Christians in Bethlehem? Their numbers have dwindled because of simply fertility and the hardships of the 'occupation'? Why the whitewash of the section? --Shuki (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two main factors: the occupation (specifically the barrier and the checkpoints since it hampers the tourist economy which the Christians dominate in Bethlehem) and lower birthrates than Muslims. Persecution (an I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all) is rare and those incidents, which I doubt ever occurred, that are listed by the religous Zionist network Arutz Sheva and staunchly pro-Zionist Dolphin are not reported, even mentioned by reliable sources such as CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, JPost, etc. The last paragraph of the section for instance is backed by JPOST and the NY Times, so therefore there is no problem on verifiability. Imagine if we used a Hamas station or al-Manar to report a false Israeli abuse against the Palestinians or Lebanese. Furthermore, saying that religious persecution is the "main reason" for Christian emigration, dismisses the rest of the text and sources in the section that say otherwise. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If the situation in Bethlehem was so bad due to the 'occupation', then there should be also a relative high rate of abandonment by Muslims, so there is more to the issue than fertility and Christians only dealing in the tourist trade that has been damaged. And having the mass media ignore Christian persecution is not new at all due to fear of Muslim retaliation and Christians really do 'give the other cheek'. --Shuki (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As Bethlehem's Christian mayor stated, Muslims do leave Bethlehem, but the rate is much is higher among Christians because they're already a minority. Plus the circumstances of Israeli restrictions affect the Christians more profoundly than the Muslims. Mainly because Christians dominate the tourist market which is Bethlehem's primary industry. They own and/or manage all of the city's hotels, they own the majority of the souvenir shops and they manage the heritage museums - all of which depend on the tourist market as the main source of income. The jobs of Muslims, although affected, do not entirely depend on tourists for survival and therefore the circumstances affect them much less.Al Ameer son (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Periodical incidents such as Muslim men trying to "forcefully marry" or "rape" pretty Christian women, or Muslim grafitti on a Christian-owned building (if stuff like this did occur at all) doesn't cause the plight of thousands of members of that population group. Also how the heak do you know that the mainstream news is afraid of a Muslim reaction (reporting Muslim persecution against others in a small city is not a sacred violation that will stir the masses) and how do you know Christians just "turn the other cheek". That's simply OR. When I go there every year (to Kafr Yasif, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Ramallah) Christians and Muslims get along and live beside each other like brothers and sisters, with no discrimination of religion at all. A Muslim bullying, hitting, arguing, etc. with a Christian or vice versa has nothing to do with religious identification but a dispute. Muslims do the same to other Muslims and Christians do the same to other Christians. Outsiders, particularly some Israelis and some pro-Israeli people either don't see it that way or they do, but twist the story to benefit their cause. Now that's what I witnessed and think, but unfortunately my personal opinion and experience is OR as well. We could continue to argue about what's true, but until reliable sources document those incidents they should not be placed in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What you and I write on this page is OR. There is no doubt, and part of the reason for a talk page. Anyway, most sources exist out there about this issue and few are Jewish at all. Teh Christians themselves have documented a lot. If you want sources other than Arutz7, then they can be provided, in time. It only means that by removing the two sentences I added to the article, you might get a vastly enlarged section referenced to the max in order to make it fully legit. --Shuki (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could find a single reliable source that would be good enough. I think adding a single passage on "Muslim persecution" would be good enough. There's already one on the incidents of Hamas persecution. Otherwise, the section (which is certainly not the most important in the article) would be too detailed and there would have to be a totally separate spin-off article on Christian emigration from Bethlehem. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an estimate fo average household income v. housing costs in the demographics section? Thanks. 79.179.113.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Just read the article's introduction and think that the word 'hundred' is missing after 'several'.

"Bethlehem has over thirty hotels and three hundred handicraft work shops, employing several of the city's residents." Butcam (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see the removal of my footnote on the citizens of 19th century Bethlehem having a reputation in Jerusalem as troublemakers: Rev W.M. Thomson, 'The Land and the Book', 1860?,page 647: 'There was formerly a Moslem quarter, which Ibrahim Pasha destroyed after the great rebellion in 1834; but this terrible vengeance failed to quell the turbulent spirit of the people. They are ever distinguished in the great feasts at Jerusalem by their fierce and lawless manners, and if any row occurs they are sure to have a hand in it.' If it has to go so be it.Padres Hana (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says "The city was sacked by the Samaritans in 529 CE, during their revolt, but was rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I". The Bethlehem Municipality site says "In 529, the church was partly destroyed by the Persians and rebuilt by Emperor Justinian in 531". So Samaritans or Persians? 87.70.89.223 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Persians didn't come until 614. I have a reasonable source and will add it later today. Zero^talk 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So the municipality page is wrong. 77.127.255.58 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This map from 1943 could be useful for the article, but there are so many images that it is hard to include another without formatting chaos. Any ideas? Zero^talk 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to this article and was surprised to see the article's use of AD and BC, which seems rather insensitive. ERA notes there is no preference for using either AD and BC or CE and BCE. I propose we change AD and BC to CE and BCE. Opinions please, for or against? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this edit [5] is not sourced, he didn't discuss it on the Talk page first and anyway it seems to be a FRINGE opinion (see Lahmu) so I'll revert it, cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you say it is unsourced, since a very good source is given (see p237). I have seen this theory in journal articles too. It should be given together with the "bread" theory. Zero^talk 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

According to senior Tanzim commander Abdullah Abu-Hadid, the church was specifically chosen due to its abundant supplies of food, water, and as a focal point for international outcry ^{[citation needed]}.

Does anyone know what this sentence means?

Guy Montag 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure - the Palestinians knew that they could occupy a Christian Church, and then cry foul when the Israelis came after them. They simply diverted the public away from their own invasion of a Christian holy place (something unthinkable the other way around) by switching the focus to the Israelis who were stationed OUTSIDE the church rather than the real desecration going on INSIDE. They guessed (correctly) that there would be "international outcry" at the Israelis for "besieging" a Christian church, and virtually no mention of 200 Palestinian Muslims occupying the Church. It worked.

--Watchin (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd there is no state called Palestine. Not to rehash the Israeli ME Flame War but no such language, culture or people EVER existed - there is no such ethnicity either, they are Arabs---and certainly does not exist today. Calling the city "Palestinian" is a blatant and politically motivated falsehood. This should be a very easy fix ---use of the term Palestinian is simply wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.110.219 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The link in Palestinian should be to Palestinian people, not Palestine. I dont think I can make this change right now, but if somebody else could that would be great. nableezy - 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. THanks for catching that. Tiamut^talk 20:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tiamut. nableezy - 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In an unsurprising development, an IP has chosen as their first "contribution" the removal of a see also link to Palestinian costumes. This edit should be reverted. nableezy - 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a disappointing lack of a decent detailed map of the area of Bethlehem; the high level map that is there at the moment isn't much use. Could we add such a map please, particularly showing the areas of control and settlement by the various sides (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, it was mentioned that " . . .David was from and the location where he was crowned as the king of Israel." But, the Hebrew Bible clearly states that, in 2 Samuel, Chapter 5 verse 3, "When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel." (New International Version - pretty sure the Masoretic Text says the same thing)

Did I miss something? Or should that part just be taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan2373 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I can't find any reference to a crowning in Bethlehem. I've removed that part. - Lindert (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The New Testament identifies Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus" implies that the city that is the subject of this article is identified specifically by the New Testament.

I saw a documentary on CBS television several years ago that asserted that: 1) There was more than one city named Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus. 2) The New Testament does not specify which was the birthplace; it says merely that he was born in a town named Bethlehem, but not which one. 3) Another one, now abandoned, was closer to Nazareth, and therefore more probable for the birthplace.

Perhaps the sentence should read "identifies Bethlehem as the name of the town where Jesus was born", or something similarly equivocal, rather than stating explicitly that this is the city to which the New Testament refers.

71.109.152.36 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what that documentary might say, the New Testament unequivocally identifies this Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace. "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David" (Luke 2:4, ESV).

1) From this, it is clear that Bethlehem was not near Nazareth, which was in Galilea, but in Judea (i.e. near Jerusalem, see map)

2) Furthermore, this Bethlehem was called 'the city of David', corresponding to Samuel 17:12 where we read "Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah".

3) Finally, this was also the place where the Messiah was supposed to be born, according to the prophecy quoted in the New Testament: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days." (Micah 5:2, quoted in Matthew 2:6). - Lindert (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your page on Herod the Great states he died 4BCE, but you place Jesus birth in AD6. Since Herod's death caused Jesus, Mary & Joseph to leave Egypt and go to Nazareth per Mathew's gospel it would appear that your date is incorrect for his birth. Mathew's account of having the family go to Nazareth was because Arcchelaus had succeeded his father, Herod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.41.103 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Old text:
Modern scholars question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing the biblical stories not as historical accounts but as symbolic narratives invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and imply a connection to the lineage of King David.
New text:
However, modern scholars are divided on this position. Some are in agreement with the biblical accounts while others question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing the biblical stories not as historical accounts but as symbolic narratives invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and imply a connection to the lineage of King David.
Reasoning:
The statement "Modern scholars question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing the biblical stories not as historical accounts but as symbolic narratives invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and imply a connection to the lineage of King David." implies that a consensus exists among all or most modern scholars whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, this is only the position of some scholars as there are many modern scholars who through thorough research and archeological discoveries have attested to the historicity and authenticity of the biblical accounts of Matthew and Luke. The following article from the Christian Research Institute ^[5] speaks to the specifics in more detail with numerous cited sources. I recommend that the original text be modified to read "However, modern scholars are divided on this position. Some are in agreement with the biblical accounts while others question whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing the biblical stories not as historical accounts but as symbolic narratives invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and imply a connection to the lineage of King David."Danshoff (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia has to be sourced from neutral, reliable sources, generally from academic publications. The Christian Research Institute is an evangelical body set up to promote the view that the Bible is infallible. The existing text sums up the scholarly consensus.--Rbreen (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does the article begin with the Arabic translation and meaning of the word Bethlehem? I realize that Arabic is the majority language presently, but it seems misleading in this sequence to put Arabic first because it implies that the word was originally of Arabic derivation. But it certainly predates Arabic. I think it would be an improvement to put either a Canaanite, Aramaic, or Hebrew translation and meaning first to more accurately reflect the historic derivation of the word Bethlehem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.197 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The article currently starts as:

Bethlehem (Arabic: بيت لحم‎ Bayt Laḥm (help·info) "House of Meat"

However, it's quite clear that the name comes from Hebrew - where the word "lechem" means bread, not meat - and not from Arabic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's Arabic because it's the name of a predominantly Arabic speaking town. In the same way that Manhattan is called by and begins with the English-speaking version, and only lower down explains about the origins of the name. As this article points out, Bethlehem has a complex origin, and the origins of the name are probably Caananite. --Rbreen (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rbreen:, I don't think the issue being raised here is precedence of language, but rather, that the Arabic translation is presenting a false folk etymology based on a linguistic shift. That's what I'm assuming Od Meshehu was bringing our attention to, anyway. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems likely the Hebrew is also a folk etymology - the origins appear Caananite - but it's an interesting point. It does need a balanced, reliable source though.--Rbreen (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact nobody is sure of the real origin of the name. There is a theory it comes from the name of Lakhmu/Lekhem/Lakhama, a god of fertility. (Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 1, part 2, p766 for modern support of this theory) As for "meat", that is apparently what the Arabic name means; a suitable source is SWP. Zero^talk 01:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Stick with RS. For what it's worth, even in English, "meat" has a broad meaning of "food" - same in Arabic. (In Arabic, and I live this, we have the word "aish", meaning both bread and life). PiCo (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW: "house of" simply means "place of" - it's saying that there was plenty of food to eat around here. Or that the god whatever lived there. But it's not literally a house (though a "house" was also a temple, so "house of" means "temple of")PiCo (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140720121812/http://www.hcef.org/component/content/article/106-report-on-christian-emigration-palestine to http://www.hcef.org/component/content/article/106-report-on-christian-emigration-palestine
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080221144101/http://www.biblelandshop.net:80/LIBRARY/Library10.html to http://www.biblelandshop.net/LIBRARY/Library10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 07:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)